Liberal Economics 101

There are two dueling propositions for giving the economy a healthy shot in the arm in Washington right now. The Republicans are championing the approval of the Keystone pipeline, which would carry Canadian oil down through the US to Louisiana, where it can be refined and/or shipped wherever in the world the oil’s owners (not the pipeline owners) choose to sell it. This would, by most estimates, almost instantly create about 20,000 good-paying jobs. These would not require any government investment, simply saying “yes.” Private industry is ready and willing — nay, eager — to start spending.

 

Plus there’s the “trickle-down” effect like we’re seeing in North Dakota, as those people who’ll start making those big bucks will start spending it. Plus all the equipment, machinery, parts, and whatnot will also bring in big spending.

 

Meanwhile, the Democrats have their own plan to create more jobs. It’s a two-part plan. Part one is to extend unemployment benefits beyond the roughly two years already in law, paying people even longer to not work. The other part is to jack up taxes on the wealthiest, pouring more money into federal coffers. Then the Washington bureaucrats can then give away the money to select favored companies, like Solyndra and LightSquared and George Soros-backed Brazilian offshore oil drilling. That’s after, of course, the bureaucrats get their cut, and members of Congress use their inside info to make killings in stock buys.

 

Here’s the scary part: to a lot of liberals, the second option actually makes more sense. They actually seem to believe that the economy will benefit more from the Obama plan than just letting private industry spend and build things.

 

I think I need to head over to the MythBusters web site. I need to buy a case of their “I reject your reality and substitute my own” T-shirts and send them down to DC.

Shortlink:

Posted by on December 13, 2011.
Filed under Culture Of Corruption, Economics, Politics.


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Anonymous

    Don’t know if it’s’ scary or just plain stupid.

    Here’s the genius in the WH a few days ago.

    “However many jobs might be generated by a Keystone pipeline,” he said, “they’re
    going to be a lot fewer than the jobs that are created by extending the payroll
    tax cut and extending unemployment insurance.”

    This really is economic stupidity on a grand scale although it does help to explain the
    [lack of] thinking on the left. And as long as the dems control the WH and Senate, using reasoning like this, there is no hope for an economic recovery.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

      I REALLY want to see his transcripts, especially what he got in any sort of math or economics courses.  That statement doesn’t make any sort of sense.  He’s essentially saying that it makes more sense to pay people who aren’t working than let jobs be created to put them to work and get them off the dole.

      Then again, his transcripts might well be sealed for a reason.

      • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

        Nah, if he had any math/science requirements to fill, he was probably able to meet them with “environmental sciences” or some other soft course tucked into the science department curricula.

        But I’d love to know how a self-confessed poor student at Occidental College managed a third year transfer to Columbia.  The policy at the time was to accept third-year transfers only of truly exceptional students.  There were some exceptions, such as for foreign students, designed to enhance “diversity” in the early days of that foul craze.

        It is probably this which Obama wishes to conceal.  Bush, Gore, Kerry, and McCain all released their transcripts and were C students.  Even if professors in the late ’70s or early ’80s would have dared give minority students lower grades, he would have had to leave, and he didn’t.  So there is something besides his academic record he doesn’t want to get out.

        But those transcripts are kept as tightly guarded as the video the LA Times has of Obama at a banquet honoring a pro-Palestinian activist.  They must have him laughing at terrorist jokes or chanting “Death to Israel!” or something.

  • Anonymous

    The economy will not recover until the de-leveraging process is complete.  It does not really matter what the left and right do.  Either of these approaches would put a little more money into the system, which would result in a few more jobs.  But most of the fraudulant debt created before the crash has not yet been acknowledged and paid for.  The best the government can do is provide a level of support for the victims.

    • Anonymous

      ^^^^ This.  Also one of the reasons that we need to go full steam ahead on foreclosures and mortgage modifications.  Seems to me that before the economy can move forward, we need to finish the corrections in the housing and securities markets.

      • Anonymous

        One more thought:  From where I sit, mortgage modifications and foreclosures aren’t that different.  In both cases, the value of a home — and the loans and securities related to it — are written down to something that more closely resembles the home’s real-world value as opposed to the value it held a the height of the real-estate bubble.

        I realize that foreclosures and modifications are painful for both homeowners and banks, and to differing degrees.  But I sometimes think the machinations of the past three years have focused on avoiding that pain, when it might actually be better to get it over with.  

    • Anonymous

      Yeah.  “VICTIMS”.  Translation:  People too fucking stupid to realize they couldn’t PAY for something they purchased.  OR people who took out new mortgages on their homes so that they could:  take a cruise, buy a couple of new cars, take a trip to Vegas.  Yeah, like I said.  “VICTIMS”.

      • Anonymous

        “Victims” doesn’t necessarily refer to individual homebuyers who took out mortgages, Garand.  

        • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

          Suckers might be more the word. 

          “Hey, honey – I can get us a $200,000 house!  And the payments will only be $700 a month!”

          For the three years.  Then it ‘adjusts’ up to $1500.  And with the economic slump and one of the two of you out of a job… you’re just SOL.

          Moral?  Never buy as much house as you can manage – don’t believe what they tell you when you see if you’re qualified for a mortgage.  (“Yes, it looks great here – you’ve got a good credit score, and… we could prequal you for $500,000.”  At that point, you start at the $200s and work your way up a bit.  Live within your means, and you won’t be screwed too badly.) And read the damn fine print and UNDERSTAND your loan terms!

        • Anonymous

          JWH, who are the victims you’re referring to, then?

          • Anonymous

            I didn’t introduce the “victims” term, but off the top of my head, I’d point to some of the usual collateral damage when bubbles burst — people who work in a trade or occupation, then suddenly find themselves jobless in a downturn.

  • Anonymous

    “Here’s the scary part: to a lot of liberals, the second option actually makes more sense. They actually seem to believe that the economy will benefit more from the Obama plan than just letting private industry spend and build things.”

    Does it really make more sense to them from a job creation standpoint or is it evidence that job creation is not their actual goal? 

    If your actual goal is to increase dependence upon the Federal government so that the power of those controlling the government is increased, it makes perfect sense. 

    Of course the power they seek is only so they can make better decisions for us then we would make for ourselves.  

    • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

      Seems to me that it makes sense from a certain perspective – that of making sure the folks on unemployment KNOW good and well who they need to vote for when it comes time.

      Someone with their own income, they might not vote ‘properly’.  It’s all about maintaining power.  Take the money away, and you’ve lost your hold on their hearts…

  • http://2012.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

    Private industry is ready and willing — nay, eager — to start spending.

    But Harry Reid said rich people don’t create jobs!

    • herddog505

      I was flabbergasted about that, too.  I realize that Dingy Harry isn’t the brightest bulb in the box, but I would think that even the dumbest member of Congress could figure out that jobs don’t just spring from the earth or rain down like manna from heaven: SOMEBODY aside from Uncle Sugar has to hire all those people who still have jobs, and usually that person is rich.  It takes money to have employees, after all.

      Indeed, thanks to democrat policies, it takes more and more money all the time.

  • Oysteria

    Dude, Nancy has already told us that foodstamps are the best stimulus ever devised by man.  And Ol’ Joe told us that we have to spend ourselves into oblivion to make money. 

    Don’t you get it?

    Obama’s idea is that if the government keeps giving people some tiny fraction of what they would make if they actually, you know, had a job, then they’ll spend it on groceries and save all the jobs at grocery stores.  What he doesn’t tell you is that they’re buying the cheapest store brands they can find and digging through all the “dented can bins” and hittin the day-old Merita bread outlet.  Thanx for the nutrition tips, Michelle.  When I get a job I’ll look into it.  In the meantime it’s Ramen noodles.

    • jim_m

      In other news President obama announced that GM would be producing a car that ran on a perpetual motion engine.

      • herddog505

        Horsepower created or saved…

  • jim_m

    You left out the part where the dems pass thousands of pages of new and confusing regulations and this will spur employment as they believe companies will be forced to hire countless new employees to figure out and comply with those regs.

    Never does it enter their minds that companies will simply go overseas or shut down.

  • Anonymous

    Facepalm, addinfinitum.

    The stupid should be painful.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

    Please explain how the GOP says that a tax hike on the rich is unsupported in any way.  From what I’ve gathered, millionaires like the idea along with new tax brackets for various forms of income.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

      Government economics in a nutshell…

      1. Tax the rich (and define ‘rich’ down to a point that’ll get you the desired revenue.)
      2. Increase Spending
      3. Profit and Prosperity are right around the corner!!  (Darn shame the map keeps getting redrawn…)

      Repeat until Epic Fail.

      That’s the way they do it – there’s never a balancing of the accounts.  They can spend far more than they’ve got -because at worst they’ll be voted out of office.  And if they can stall off the collapse long enough – they’ll be long gone and not responsible for it.

      So you see more and more money promised to more and more people – with never any serious attempt to cut back.  

      Real world, however… it’s a trifle more difficult.  Reality won’t allow you to spend more than you take in for long, and borrowed money has to be paid back eventually.  We’re pretty much at the end of our credit line – and the folks in Washington just want to keep on the way they are, spending much more than they take in and writing IOUs on the future there’s no way of ever redeeming. 

      But like I said – THEY won’t be responsible for paying it off.  And the money from the  ’rich’?  Congrats – you’ve bought a few hours, maybe a couple of days of government spending.  We’re still on course for a $1.5 trillion deficit this year.

      Add that to the $15 tril debt we’ve got now.  There’s a problem, all right – but it’s not because the rich aren’t paying their fair share.

    • jim_m

      Buffett doesn’t even pay his taxes so saying that other millionaires want to pay taxes like he does doesn’t say much.  He has been contesting his tax bill since 2001.  It is rank hypocrisy for the left to use him as any example of people advocating for raising taxes on the wealthy. (but then rank hypocrisy is nothing new for the left either)

      The biggest reason to scuttle obama’s taxes on the rich is that it will not solve the problem we are facing.  You cannot tax enough people to close the current budget gap.  You could confiscate all the wealth of the rich and still not have enough money.

      The whole “tax the rich” meme is meant to cover for the fact that obama is doing nothing to solve the nation’s budgetary crisis.  Only cutting spending (and not just cuts in future spending, which is what obama will accept) will fix the problem. 

      So to answer your question:  Cutting taxes on the rich is a cover for taking real action to fix the nation’s finances.  Rearranging the deck chairs is not going to fix the hole in the Titanic’s hull.  That is why we should ditch obama’s bullshit taxes.

    • herddog505

      It has been said many times before:

      If these millionaires are so crazy-desperate to pay more of their money to Uncle Sugar, they have only to send in a check.

      Attn Dept G
      Bureau of the Public Debt
      P. O. Box 2188
      Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

      Now, why don’t they?  Why is it necessary for Uncle Sugar to make them (and everybody else) pay more?  Further, if giving more money to Uncle Sugar is such an obviously great idea, then why isn’t everybody tripping over himself to do it?  I mean, why wait for a tax bill?  Why not pay up RIGHT NOW?

      I think that the answer is obvious, which is likely why the GOP is claiming that these tax hikes are “unsupported”.  Just because a few judas goats claim that walking into the slaughterhouse is a fabulous idea doesn’t MAKE it a fabulous idea; just because we hear quite alot from the judas goats and not so much from the rest of the flock doesn’t mean that they’re crazy about the idea, either.

      It’s a lot like the gorebots who yap about cutting emissions and green energy while they travel between expensive resorts and their huge mansions in private jets, limos and yachts: when the millionaires who think it a duty – a PATRIOTIC duty, I say – to pay more in taxes actually fire their tax attorneys and accountants and start writing big, regular checks to the US Treasury, then I’ll start believing that it’s actually a good idea.

      Incidentally, according to the Treasury Dept., these patriots and their like-minded citizens gave a whopping $3,277,369.23 to reduce the federal debt this past fiscal year*.  That’s about – what? – two minutes worth of debt?

      It’s also been said many times before: the problem isn’t lack of revenue, it’s too much spending.  Every millionaire in the country – the friggin’ WORLD – could give up every penny he has and we’d STILL be in debt up to our eyeballs.

      —-

      (*) http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

      • jim_m

        The left always whines about how they feel they should be paying more in taxes but somehow none of them ever take the opportunity to actually give the government more money. 

        Seriously, if they wanted to silence all the charges of hypocrisy all they need to do is give up their money.  Funny, how instead all they do is validate those charges.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

          Well, THEY barely have enough to struggle by on.  That they’re struggling means that the money’s got to be SOMEWHERE – and since they’re not ‘rich’, all the money has to be with the ‘rich’.

          Bill Whittle explains it clearly.

          If we were to take everything from the putative rich – the government could run for maybe a week. 

          But that’s like the old concept of eating your seed corn.  Yes, you’ve managed to avoid starving for now… but you’ll have nothing to plant in the spring, and nothing to harvest later.

  • retired.military

    And Commadant Chico decides to take a powder on this thread as anything he says will bely either stupidity or naivtitity or his unabashed love of liberalims (or all 3).

    • Anonymous

      I actually have a job and pay taxes, and spend time doing other things than commenting here.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Stan25 Stan Brewer

    Here we go with the government will create all the new jobs mantra again. More self-important bureaucrats to download kiddie porn to taxpayer paid for computers? More than likely. When will these stupid liberals realize that when the tax dollars from the rich and working middle class stop coming, where will the money come from? China? In their wildest dreams. Europe? Not a snowball’s chance in hell. Besides, Europe is already on the brink of the cliff and they are begging us to bail them out. The economy in China is on the verge of collapse, but the top commie leaders are not gonna advertise that any time soon. Be like the former Soviet Union, saying everything is rosy and humming along, when people are standing in line to get their daily ration of bread and there is not enough for everyone in the line? Let’s just face the facts here. The world economies tried John Maynard Keynes theory and it has failed miserably. Time to go back to the tried and works every time Capitalistic system.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

    It’s really simple, actually.

    The pipeline benefits the corporations more than American citizens.

    Unemployment benefits benefits American citizens more than corporations.

    No wonder conservatives hate the idea – it puts food in the mouths of children.

    And they aren’t mutually exclusive – you can have both. But dems think the welfare of the American people is more important then the welfare of Exxon.

    Conservatives think that we’ll fall for the trickle down theory. You remember “it’ll triuckle down” = that’s what the GOP told Americans 10 years ago to sell the tax cuts for the rich… Instead debt bloomed and the nation went into a recession.

    • herddog505

      Absolutely.  Why, that little unpleasantness in Sept. 2001 had NOTHING to do with the economy going south.  Letting people keep a bit more of their own money, though: THAT was the REAL economic killer.

      Jebus…

      But I’m glad that you’ve pointed out how corporate activity benefits the companies more than the workers.  So, I say that we should all just quit our jobs right now and go on unemployment!  Not only will this do FAR more to stimulate the economy than our jobs do, it’ll also be one in the eye for our nasty ol’ corporate masters who (how DARE they???) want to make a buck.

      / sarc

    • retired.military

      You are right it is simple Stephen.

      a.  Private industry creates jobs.
      b.  Private industry creates wealth.
      c.  People get jobs and are not dependant on govt for things
      d.  govt gets tax money from PRODUCTIVE CITIZENS.
      e.  People pay taxes and thus become a + in the revenue side of the govt ledger but a negative on the side of being under govt control.

      No wonder liberals hate it.
      See how simple it is Stephen.

      Instead we get your drivel

      “Here’s the scary part: to a lot of liberals, the second option actually makes more sense. They actually seem to believe that the economy will benefit more from the Obama plan than just letting private industry spend and build things.”

      Are you really as stupid as your posts? Do you really believe the crap that you write?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

        Look at the positive effect of tax cuts for the rich.

        Did it “trickle down” — no.

        Proves you wrong. But hey, keep repeating the same BS.

        • retired.military

          Stephen and his changing goal posts.

          Lets LOOK AT THE TAX CUTS

          http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm

          Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion. The package would extend the Bush tax
          cuts for everyone for two years.

          The bulk of that cost — $463 billion — is for the extension of cuts for
          families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and
          2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

          In other words 85% of the tax cuts went for families making less than 250k.
             So much for your tax cuts for the rich mime.

          And since you want to look at effects.

          Lets look at the effects of the $4T + that Obama has added to the deficit in under 3 years.

          a. Unemployment (real unemployment that is) around 11% (that is taking into account all those folks who just stopped looking for work )

          b. More people on food stamps than ever before.

          c. Less people working. But hey that is okay. Unemployment provides stimulus for the economy right?

          d. Billions going to Obama cronies. donors and unions who funnel some of it back into his reelection campaign.

          e. People SPENDING Other people’s money instead of spending their own by going out and having a job of their own.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

            Actually, the word you’re looking for is ‘meme’, not ‘mime’.  Mimes are creepy, memes are transmitted ideas.

            (Some of which can be creepy also… but usually don’t dress in black, paint their faces white, and try to get out of invisible boxes…)

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

          YOu know, Stephen. .y our claim does not equate to fact.  And no NEW tax cuts were given. . just the old ones were not taken away.  Please stop engaging in the sophistry of acting like there were ‘new’ tax cuts.

          The old ones, which were already accounted for in peoples behavior, were not taken away.

          • Stephen

            We’ve had the Bush tax cuts in place for a decade now – a decade in which our economy tanked.

            The “job creators” haven’t been creating jobs, despite the tax cuts – so what would a fooll do – give them more tax cuts, of course!

            Republicans will tell you that raising the taxes on the rich kills jobs. It’s bullshit. We’ve had 10+ years of tax cuts for the rich and instead of “Creating jobs” we entered a near Depression.

            Tax cuts do not equal jobs created. It’s just bullshit.

    • retired.military

      BTW Stephen

      “10 years ago to sell the tax cuts for the rich… Instead debt bloomed and the nation went into a recession.      ‘”

      The old tax cuts for the rich mime.

      You neglect to mention that the majority of the money from the Bush tax cuts WENT TO THE MIDDLE CLASS.

      Also liberals refuse to acknowledge that even if you take ALL THE MONEY from anyone making more than $1 million it wont even PAY THE DEFICIT FOR THIS YEAR ALONE.

      Or to put it another way

      Total income tax revenue for 2010.  $1.39 (call it $1.4 trillion )
      http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/
      Top 25% of tax payers (those making about $67k agi)  paid   86.34% of the taxes.
      http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
      that means that out of $1.4 trillion they paid  about $1.21 trillion of that $1.4 trillion.
      That means that if we double the federal govt revenue from income taxes from EVERYONE who made more than $67K AGI you still wouldnt MAKE UP FOR THE DEFICIT FOR THIS YEAR ALONE.

      Once again,  Common sense dictates we dont have a low tax problem.  We have an OVERSPENDING PROBLEM.

      And yet you fail to mention that the Bush tax cuts costs about 1/’3rd of what Obama has spent bailing out Fannie and Freddie or on Obama’s stimulus plans from 2009 ALONE.

      Keep on drinking the kool aid Stephen.

      • jim_m

        Don’t bother talking facts to Stephen.  He won’t understand.  Being a lefty means not paying attention to reality.  It’s the only way they can sustain their belief system. (and people call Mormonism a cult!)

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

          The reality is funding unemployment puts cash into the economy immediately. An unemployed person doesn’t use the check to buy shares of Exxon – they use it for necessities like gas and paying the electric bill.

          And it puts food into the mouths of children.

          No wonder conservatives hate it. Feeding poor children of unemployed parents is the LAST thing on a conservative’s mind – and the profits of Exxon? VERY important.

          • jim_m

            The reality is that unemployment is a stop-gap measure and should be temporary as it is actually a drag on the economy long term.  While it puts money into the hands of a few needy people, it does so at the expense of economic growth.  Unemployment benefits are taken from taxes and carry substantial bureaucratic overhead. Only a fraction of the money spent administering unemployment benefits is actually delivered to the recipient. 

            So what you are advocating is taking money away from productive use where it would pay a person’s salary from the productive job they do and instead taking money from someone doing a job, laundering it through a wasteful bureaucracy, and then giving it away to someone who is not generating any economic activity.  While they will spend that money on food etc, they are only maintaining a fraction of the spending they would if they had a job, plus the money they spend is taken away from someone who is contributing to economic growth.

            Talking about unemployment creating economic activity is like talking about a perpetual motion machine.  It just doesn’t work.  Unemployment is a sap on the economic growth of the nation if it is anything but short term. 

            When you talk about feeding children you are just being an asshole.  Having been on unemployment twice and having had to try to feed a family and keep a roof over their heads I will tell you that unemployment doesn’t cover the bills.  Nothing feeds your children like having an actual job.  You might be a freeloading scumbag, but the rest of us aspire to actually do something with our lives.  Unemployment isn’t going to feed my kids properly and it sure as hell isn’t going to help me keep my house. 

            The arrogance is astonishing. to think that you really believe that people are better off on unemployment than having jobs.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

            No question it’s a stop gap measure. Nobody is suggesting otherwise, except when you keep throwing straw men into the comment pool.

          • retired.military

            Straw men??

            LOL

            Lets see

            Tax cuts for the rich
            Republicans hate the poor
            Unemployment =Stimulus
            Enron Profits.
            Evil big business

            If there were any more straw men around here we would need a division of Dorthy and the wizards of oz to make up for them.

          • Evil Otto

            You forgot the part where we want to starve children.

          • retired.military

            Not republicans want to starve the poor mime.

            Give a man a fish feed him for a day.
            Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. 

            Give people welfare and feed them for a day (and keep them beholden to you).
            Have a person work and become a productive member of society and he isnt beholden to you and doesnt feel obligated to vote for you.

            Again

            I ask  you are you really this stupid or do your posts just seem that way.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

        You neglect to mention that the majority of the money from the Bush tax cuts WENT TO THE MIDDLE CLASS.

        False.  Since the tax cuts have been implemented, 1.1 million jobs have been lost in the last 10 years.

        Yet, when Clinton raised taxes, 23 million jobs were created.  

        Where did the money go?

        As the meme goes, 38% of the money from the tax cuts went to the top 1% such as the Walmart heirs in 2007.  By today’s numbers, they make $93 billion dollars, which is used to lobby for more tax savings.

        So, the median wage?  Went down by 2.3% over the same time.

        Where is your evidence that the cuts went to the middle class?

        • retired.military

          http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm

          Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion. The package would extend the Bush tax
          cuts for everyone for two years.

          The bulk of that cost — $463 billion — is for the extension of cuts for
          families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and
          2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

          The rest — $81.5 billion — is attributable to the extension of cuts that
          apply to the highest income families.

          The cost of extending all the tax cuts over 10 years would have been $3.7
          trillion.

          And Jay everyone knows that

          a.  The jobs created during Clinton years was from the dot com boom. 

          b.  That the economy was going into a recession about 6 months prior to Clinton leaving office.

          Also in additon, the people making more than $250k actually pay more % in taxes now than they did before.
          Nice try though.

          For future reference try to use something a bit more reliable than than the huffington post,  I honestly thought better of you until your post above.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Let’s be realistic.  The fact is, the Bush tax cuts were the sticking point for the Super Committee.  Republicans refused to consider a tax increase for the rich.

            By the statistics:

            The average Bush tax cut in 2011 for the 1% is greater than the income of the other 99% ($66,384 compared to $58,506)

            From the same statistics:

            Effectively, this means taxpayers earning more than $34,500 per year in wages pay a higher marginal tax rate than millionaires earning their income from investments. In 2007, 80 percent of all capital gains went to Americans earning more than $200,000 per year.

             So the facts say this was still a tax increase to the middle class.  This is before getting into the GOP trying to lower the tax rate of those making over $200,000 from 35% to 28%.

            Further research from the Congressional Budget Office says that the deficit will grow from the Bush Tax cuts.

            The CBO estimates a cumulative deficit of $6.2 trillion from 2002- 2011; $2.02 trillion, the Bush Tax Cuts, including last year’s extension are responsible.  In other words, 1/3 of the shortfall is considered the fault of the Bush Tax Cuts.

             So let’s sum this up:

            - Over the long run, the BTC were ineffective in creating jobs.
            - The BTC cost Americans more.
            - It came off as a rich tax cut by forcing the middle class, those that don’t have investments, nor enjoy $200,000 years to pay a higher marginal tax rate.
            -  Business and Estate Tax = very big money savings for the $200,000+ American “taxpayers”.

          • jim_m

            Jay ,

            You are confusing deficit with revenue loss,  Deficits did climb with Bush but htat was more due to the WOT than to any reduction in revenues.  In fact after the economic impact of 9/11 the tax cuts helped the economy to recover which increased revenues.

            Finally, it is a nonstarter to keep claiming that taxes on the rich are not high enough.  You cannot increase taxes high enough to pay for what the government is spending.  The issue is the spending.  It must decrease.

            That being the case the only purpose for pushing taxes on anyone (and especially the rich) is class warfare.  Increased taxes won’t fix the problem.  Calling for increased taxes is little more than an effort to distract from the real problem.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Finally, it is a nonstarter to keep claiming that taxes on the rich are not high enough.  You cannot increase taxes high enough to pay for what the government is spending.  The issue is the spending.  It must decrease

            We both agree on that.  The glaring problem is actually the military, where 59% ($553 billion out of $1.34 Trillion.) of the federal budget goes to the military and is used frivolously (as I explain in a post to RM below), the money can better be used in other sectors.

            Military spending only creates 11,200 jobs while putting more money into education (in the case in the study, it’s $1 billion), the job creation would be 26,700 jobs.  So, to put it mildly, the studies are showing this is the last place we should be putting more money if we, the US, want to create more jobs.

            That being the case the only purpose for pushing taxes on anyone (and especially the rich) is class warfare.  

            I’m not certain if that’s necessarily a bad thing.  Looking at the problems of unmitigated lobbying for the very rich and affluent, for people such as Jack Abramoff or Chris Dodd shows how lobbyists corrupt the political elite to have laws that continue to destroy American society in order to make individual politicians and businesses very rich.

            Increased taxes won’t fix the problem. Calling for increased taxes is little more than an effort to distract from the real problem.

            True on the first part, but it helps in businesses reinvesting into American businesses if there’s a progressive tax of some kind.  Personally, I would like to see a different tax code than the clusterfuck of a tax code that is quite difficult to follow now.  If we could make a change to a better taxing system that’s fairly easy to use instead of one that is subject to political maneuverings every year, I would think that would help out our misallocated capital problem that has been going on for the last 30 years.

            I fail to see how income inequality isn’t a serious problem, though.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

            Jay – recheck your math. – 59% of $1.34 tril isn’t $553 bil.  (It would be 55.3% of $1 tril, however.)

            Re income inequality – it’s a joke, right?  You need money for food, clothing, shelter.  Beyond that, everything – EVERYTHING – is a luxury.

            At one time I was getting by on $5k/year, sharing an apartment with three other people.  I was having a fairly good time, worried about the bills some, of course, but covering expenses… then one day realized that I wasn’t getting anywhere at all.

            Found a full time job, quit the part-time one at the bookstore, tripled my income that year.  Saved up and bought a VCR and a TV of my own.  Luxury!  The TV cost $400 in the mid-80s, a 15″ portable.  (I think I got ripped off – but it was a good brand…)

            Now, it takes a LOT fewer hours of work to buy pretty much any consumer good.  15″ TV at Walmart?  $99.  DVD? $30.

            Income Inequality’s a catch-phrase designed to crank up envy – nothing more.  It’s not a case of “I can’t have X because it’s not affordable” – because it is.  It’s a case of “Well, George makes X and I make Y and that’s just not fair!”  But Georges’ income doesn’t deprive you of anything, and taking it away from him won’t give you more.

            You can get what you need, and a lot of what you want at a minimal income level – it’s a case of trying to get support for liberal politicians by cranking up the ol’ class envy truck, sounding the horn, and hoping enough idiots will hop on to make the trip worthwhile.

            And you’re no idiot.  Why do you buy into this crap, anyway?

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay
          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

            SO you are saying the military, which is mandated by the constitution, needs to be slashed so that things which were only ‘validated’ by torturing the words of the constitution to mean the opposite of what they are, can continue to be funded?

          • retired.military

            Actrually Jay republicans considered numerous tax increases.  just not the ones that the dems wanted.  Even if they gave the dems everything they wanted the Supercommittee would have failed because it wasnt meant to suceed anyway via dems not wanting it to suceed.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            RM, I beg to differ.  It seems that the GOP did not want to increase the tax rate for their constituents.  They signed on knowing that a proposal would be passed for tax increases and a decrease in military spending.  They wanted to sabotage this process.  I would put the most onus on Bob Goodlatte:

            - Voted to increase the debt ceiling
            - Voted for SOPA, setting up the Great Firewall of America
            - Voted for the recent NDAA bill for detaining Americans

            The Supercommittee was doomed to fail.  There was no way that Dems and the GOP could get together and agree on a compromise.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

            Why are you using absolute dollars rather than percentages. . which is really dishonest?

      • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

        “Total income tax revenue for 2010.  $1.39 (call it $1.4 trillion )”

        Crap – that low?  I was thinking a $2 tril baseline all along…

        Things are a lot worse than I thought, then…

    • retired.military

      Stephen

      Here is liberal economics 101.

       Democrats had supermajority in house and Senate from Jan 2009 – Jan 2011

      During that time they

      a. Did not repeal Bush tax cuts (But we still hear the mime about how the Bush tax cuts for the rich are so bad from not only dem congressman but asswipes like you.

      b.  Did not pass a budget

      c.  (the Senate) rejected Obama’s one budget submission 97-0

      d.  Ran up over $3 trillion in more debt (more than what Bush did in 6 years fighting 2 wars).

      e.   DId not pass any tax increases for the rich (even though they to this day decry  republicans for not doing either)

      Shall I go on Stephen or are those enough INDISPUTABLE FACTS FOR YOU?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

        Oh, look all caps. He must be serious.

        American children should eat. Period. Even the children on the unemployed – -ESPECIALLY THE CHILDREN OF THE UNEMPLOYED.

        See, I have shift lock key too.

        • jim_m

          SCREW YOU!  You want to care about the children of the unemployed?  Get their parents jobs!!  That is the only thing that will make it better.

          Unemployment doesn’t cover what most people need to make to keep their home etc.  You don’t have a clue about what you are talking about.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

            Why can’t there be both? Food on the table for Christmas is the highest priority, but nobody is suggesting that Americans don’t need jobs.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

            Obama is. 

            Extend tax cuts and unemployment, but fight like hell any suggestion that actually allowing businesses to work and expand might be good in the long run.

            It’s called ‘eating your seed corn’.

            When I travel around North America, I like to visit old historic sites. On the east coast, there are many historical sites of the first settlers who traveled from Europe in search of the New World. As you move west, there are historical sites of the first settlements of the pioneers as they conquered the harsh and untamed wilderness.

            Although the stories at each site differ, there is often, sadly, a similar theme. At some point in the early years of the settlement, there will be a time when the agricultural crops do not produce enough food to last the winter. In order to keep from starving, the small settlement will start to eat the seeds they had been saving to plant in the following spring.When spring finally comes, the settlement does not have any seeds to plant.

            As a result, there is no harvest that year and the people begin to die of starvation. At this point, either the settlement is abandoned or the settlement dies along with the deaths of its residents.

              But what the heck – so what if we don’t have any money – we’ll just borrow some from elsewhere. 

            But we’re not going to ‘plant’ it, and allow business to actually grow – we’re going to eat it, because buying votes with it is far more important in the short term.

            When you’re out of seed corn, and can’t borrow any – you’re screwed.

        • retired.military

          And yet you didnt dispute any one of the my facts Stephen.

          Just threw another straw man in there.

          WHy didnt the dems think of the poor childrent during points A-E?

          Lets see.  Say there are 100 million poor in the US.

          Divide $4 trillin more debt by 100 million and each one of those poor should get a check for  about $40k each.  
          WOW OBama and the DEMS are doing such a great job.

    • jim_m

      Unemployment benefits benefits American citizens more than corporations.

      Really?  So unemployment benefits benefit Americans more than jobs do?  WTF are you smoking?  Are you so stupid that you’ve bought into the obama/Pelosi bullshit that unemployment benefits are more stimulatory to the economy than jobs? 

      Where do you think the government gets the money for those unemployment benefits?  Oh yeah, the 1% right?  You’re a freaking idiot.

      Here’s a clue dumbass:  Having a job and an income puts food on your table better than unemployment does.  No wonder lefties hate the idea of getting a job – it lifts people out of poverty.

      Catch a clue.  Shale oil is a lasting resource on the North American continent that can free us from middle eastern oil.  We have enough reserves in the Green River Basin alone to last 400 years.  The left talks about energy independence but they don’t really want to achieve it. 

      By nixing the Keystone project obama is not only making us dependent upon foreign oil but he is killing jobs for our future and he is giving access to a strategic resource to the Chinese, a nation that still views us as their enemy even if those on the left here are incapable of conceiving of such a thing.

      Why is it that the left is so anti-American that they will do anything to see people jobless at home and see our enemies strengthened abroad?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

        Sorry, Jim – as I said, they aren’t mutually exclusive – but children of unemployed parents should get food before oil interests get benefits.

        I know you hate the idea of all of those children being fed, but given the high unemployment rate and the fact that trickle down doesn’t work — it’s more important right now to feed these children — right now.

        Catch a clue.

        • jim_m

          FUCK YOU!

          Have you ever tried to feed a family on unemployment?!  It doesn’t work.  Have you ever faced losing your house because unemployment won’t pay the bills?  Have you had to tell your kids that they might have to lose all their friends because unemployment won’t pay the bills? 

          You arrogant, ignorant asshole.  I have been in those situations and I have been fortunate enough to get out, not by some bullshit government handout but by getting off my ass and getting a job, getting two jobs until I could find one that would pay the bills again.

          You talk like the oil companies are going to get something for nothing.  Sorry chump, but they are also going to employ thousands of people and provide a living for thousands of families.  Your opposition is nothing more than saying that you really don’t give a damn about those thousands of families and their children.  Just consign them to poverty, you don’t care.

        • retired.military

          I grew up on welfare.

          You know how I got out.  I worked my ass off most of the time at 2 jobs at the same time.

          4 jobs while in senior year of high school and carrying a full class load.

          20 years in the military.  As  a young soldier I was eliible for WIC but didnt take it because I was making enough money to take care of my family without welfare.

          Dems want a perpetual underclass so that they will have someone they can count on for votes. 

          • jim_m

            Dems want a perpetual underclass so that they will have someone they can count on for votes.

            Close.  The dems want a permanent underclass that is dependent upon the government for survival so they can force them to vote the way they demand by threatening their government subsidies. 

            It’s not just an underclass, it’s servitude that the dems want.  Remember the dems were the party of the Confederacy.  They like having slaves.

        • Ken in Camarillo

          Stephen: your comment marks you as the dumbest sack of shit anyone has seen here for years.

          Don’t you realize how powerful additional jobs are? Do you realize how energy is a major input of every economic activity we have? Anyone with half a brain knows the fastest way to help the economy is to make energy more plentiful and cheaper. That pipeline would be a twofer: a large number of new jobs, and a powerful influence toward lower energy prices.

          But noooooo… the big ZERO has to avoid losing any watermelons for the election next year, so no pipeline until after the election.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Stan25 Stan Brewer

    The only jobs extending unemployment benefits create are more bureaucrats. They are so overworked now that they can take time out of their busy schedules to download kiddie porn on the taxpayer dime. No wonder the left wants to kill the private sector by taxing the “rich”. They don’t want spending cuts because every person that they can put on the federal tit, is a vote for the DemocRAT/liberal philosophy.  Funny how the government can keep on hiring and the private sector is barely keeping their heads above water. Isn’t it better to hire these talented people into the private sector and let them be innovative, instead of being deadwood in some government office somewhere? Oh that’s right, the government does not want talented people. They want sheeple.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

    And about those “20,000 jobs”…

    The Keystone pipeline project is back in play as part of the
    payroll-tax cut debate, and Congressional Republicans say it would
    create jobs.

    But there’s a wide range of estimates, with one forecast that Keystone could actually cost jobs.

    But TransCanada numbers count each job on a yearly basis. If the
    pipeline employs 10,000 people working for two years, that’s 20,000 jobs
    by the company’s count.

    The estimates also include jobs in Canada, where about a third of the $7 billion pipeline would be constructed.

    The
    U.S. State Department, which must green light the project, forecasts
    just 5,000 direct U.S. jobs over a two year construction period.

    Conservatives know this… they know the “20,000 jobs” are bullshit, but they keep repeating the lie because they want to make damn sure that some children go hungry at Christmas.

    Makes you wonder what happened to their hearts, don’t it?

    • jim_m

      That doesn’t account for the future refining jobs and the jobs created for transporting the refined products. Nobody seriously thinks that increasing economic activity is going to decrease jobs.  How do you expect that we will pipe in more oil and refine more oil while cutting jobs? 

      You are just showing what an incredible idiot you are.

    • retired.military

      Lets say it is 10k jobs.

      If you want to talk about how jobs are counted why not look at how Obama counts jobs as being saved or created? Want to talk about temp jobs? How about the census workers which Obama proudly touted as created jobs.

      As for the 2 years you mention. Who do you think is giong to run the refineries in the states? Build the pipeline in the states? Where do you think the money from those jobs are going to go? They are gonig to create more jobs but hey you dont think about that now do you.

      How many jobs does Obama create with his current plan?  ZERO.  That is unless you count the extra tax collectors for Obamacare or the extra beaurocrats which that will keep the machine running.  And all that takes tax money to produce ummm   Nothing.
      Yet again with we want to starve poor children.  Get out of yoru high horse.  Go talk to some folks who live in the projects.  Ask them how long they have been there.  Most will say “all my life the govt been taking care of me” .  Yep that is helping folks there.  They dont learn to live on their own instead they learn to take hand outs from the govt.  In return they vote for the dems who keep the handouts coming. 
      republicans would love to see the problem of the poor people get solved as in poeple enriching themselves.  Do you know why?  Because that means the dems would lose half their base.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

        Actually, every dollar of unemployment benefits goes right back into the economy – over and over again.

        The unemployed get money which they spend at the local grocery store and gas station, electric utility, clothing stores, etc.

        And in turn those local businesses now have more income, for advertising, wages, etc

        And the goods purchased benefit the farms and factories – and the American workers who work there.

        It’s really quite simple. Funding unemployment puts money into the economy now, and benefits Americans now.

        And the pipeline is just a way for conservatives to keep food out of the mouths of the unemployed and their children and to hold them hostage hoping for the oil industry to get their way.

        For you guys who claim to “not get” the OWS message, that’s it in a nutshell. The American people first, corporations second.

        • jim_m

          Actually, every dollar of unemployment benefits goes right back into the economy – over and over again.

          Correction:  Every dollar of unemployment benefits is taken from a tax payer, who would have spent them directly into the economy.  Instead that money is taken by the government and wasted on government overhead, which does not create economic growth, and a small fraction of that money is then given to the unemployed who can then spend it back into the economy.

          What you are doing is buying into a fantasy that says government grows money, but in reality government takes money out of the economy for non productive uses.  Unemployment, while it does allow people to spend money back into the economy, is extremely suboptimal and ultimately is a game of diminishing returns.  The unemployed cannot spend as much and therefore those who get that money are getting less and they will pay less taxes so there will be less to give out as unemployment benefits.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

            “Correction:  Every dollar of unemployment benefits is taken from a tax payer”

            Nope. employers pay the tax, not individuals.

            And the employer has already paid the tax. We’ re just trying to move the money out of Washington and into the hands of the Americans who are hurting this most this holiday season as a result of the poor economy.

            Employers pay an effective rate of 0.8% to the feds.

            Let’s use that money to feed the poor at Christmas — what do you say, conservatives? Can the poor eat this Christmas,  or must the corporations get their pudding first?

            http://www.policyalmanac.org/social_welfare/archive/unemployment_compensation.shtml

          • retired.military

            Stephen

            Stop with the ‘Feed the poor;” mime

            What have you done to feed the poor this year?

            How about we cut the money from Obama’s friends that run the “clean energy”: companies like Solyndra and give that to the poor.  How about we take the money that they use to put shrimps on treadmills and use that to feed the poor?

            How about we take the billion dollars that Obama will spend to try to get reelected and use that feed the poor?

            How about we take money that from the Arts and Huamanities program which pays thousands fror junk sculptures and use that to feed the poor?

            How about we take the money from college endowments (harvard has a couple of hundred million) and use that feed the poor?

            What about those ideas Stephen?

            Oh and still no response from stephen on the people who can do work (ie the military) but refuse to do so.

            Lets look at your ‘The employer pays the tax”  WHy of coruse he does.  And he takes this out of his own pocket doesnt he?  Why umm NO.  Instead he passes it on to the poor who are buying his product.

            BTW Stephen ever notice how many companies are going under and going bankrupt lately. I am talking about not only new start ups but companies that have been in business for 50+ years. We have had 2 business that have been in business over 50 years shut down this year in my area. You dont think that extra little just under 1% wont push others on the brink into the whole and throw more people out of work? If you do than you are a total idiot. Oh wait, you already proved that.

            BTW
            What exactly is your expertise and background Stephen. Please enlighten us with your worldly experience to make you such an expert.

          • jim_m

            Small businesses, who employ the half of Americans, most often file taxes as individuals or as Subchapter S Corporations, meaning that when the business is taxed you tax the individual.

            Does it not occur to you that ever dollar the company has to spend on unemployment insurance is a dollar that does not get either :1) paid to employees, 2) paid to the owners, 3) used to reduce the cost to the consumer?

            So yes, every dollar that goes into unemployment is a dollar that came from a citizen.  The taxes paid by corporations still come from people.  Every dollar in corporate tax is a dollar that could have gone to give someone a job.

            You really need to take an econ class.  These are basics of economics that you are demonstrating to be totally ignorant of.

          • Evil Otto

            Nope. employers pay the tax, not individuals.

            You have absolutely no idea how taxes work, do you?

          • Anonymous

            Employers, in Stephen’s twisted world view, are not individuals.  They are the “Other”.

          • Oysteria

            “Nope. employers pay the tax, not individuals”

            Where do you think that money comes from?  Who do you think that cost is passed on to?  Do you think it isn’t figured into the price of what ever commodity they’re selling?

            Stephen, you’re either profoundly stupid or inherently evil.  I’ve haven’t figured out which yet.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

            Ok, lets use small words here. . 

            When an employer pays their employee, what do they use to pay him with?When you reduce the pool of the stuff they use to pay him with by taking it away to use for other purposes, what will happen to the amount he pays from that pool to his employees?  Are they going to just say “Oh well, those are the breaks, I’ll just lose money now” – or are they going to say “Sorry, Fred.  But I have less money so you have less money.  No bonus this year/going to have to cut your hours/going to have to reduce your salary/going to have to lay you off.”

        • retired.military

          Actually Stephen

          It has been shown that a dollar circulates like 7 times from private sector creation vs about 3 times for tax dollar creation. 

          What do you think “the rich” do with their money?  Stuff it in mattresses.

          Your little circle of the dollar there shows some understanding but tell me. What is the difference between a dollar created from the private industry and a dollar paid in unemployment benefits. Doesnt it go through the same cycle. Except that it doesnt have the govt waste in its cycle does it.

          THey didnt get rich that way.  “The rich” invest in companies which  produce things which make a profit and which in turn employs people to make those things to sell at a profit (or provide services). 

          Go take a macroeconomics class. 

          The OWS message is to give us something we didnt earn and do so by taking it from someone who did earn it.

        • retired.military

          “And the pipeline is just a way for conservatives to keep food out of the mouths of the unemployed and their children and to hold them hostage hoping for the oil industry to get their way.

          Yes I am a maschoist.

          Please explain this bit of logic.  PLEASE tell us how the two are even linked somewhere in that mush you call a brain.

          If you went to college sue the school for their money back. When you go to court simply repeat that statement to a judge and they will find that yes the college did in fact cheat you out of the education your parents paid for.

        • Evil Otto

          Actually, every dollar of unemployment benefits goes right back into the economy – over and over again.

          Ah, the “broken window” fallacy. That never gets old.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

          If it goes BACK into the economy, then please answer me this. . where was it taken from in the first place?  The Economy.  In which case, why not leave it there and not have the government take out its cut before putting it back in?

      • jim_m

        Let’s face it.  Stephen is probably some high school or college age punk, living in his parent’s basement, that has never held a real job and probably has few prospects for one.  That’s why he thinks that unemployment benefits are like manna from heaven. He has no concept of what he is asking Americans to do.  He doesn’t realize how miserable unemployment is and how having a job does more than just put food on the table.

        Stephen is perfectly willing to sacrifice the futures of families on the alter of his lefty enviro ideology.  People aren’t real to him they are only pawns to be used to advance the ideological agenda. 

    • Evil Otto

      Dammit, didn’t mean to hit “like,” I mean to hit “reply.” Oh, well, consider it a Christmas gift, Stevie.

      Now, can you go more than one comment without mentioning “hungry children?” No one impressed by your meaningless emotional pandering, and no one thinks you actually give a damn about hungry children. They;re just tools for you to use to score a few political points on a blog, nothing more.

      • jim_m

        If you hit the liked tag it will unlike the comment.

    • Anonymous

      So, how shaky is your source that you can’t link to it?

      I’ve seen the same un-sourced quote on 4 sites today… always the sign of a talking points campaign.

  • retired.military

    Stephen

    Where is your buddy Chico in this?  You know mr “Protect the interests of the US”

    You know like have Canadian oil coming to the US vs oil from overseas?  You know creating AMERICAN JOBs instead of having people on welfare and buying oil from overseas?

    How about investing in US oil and nuclear energy?

    Which is more positive for US security interests?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

      They’re not mutually exclusive, but American children need to eat.

      It’s Christmas, remember?

      • http://www.facebook.com/Stan25 Stan Brewer

        Tell that to your butt buddies Dingy Harry, Nancy Pelsoi and Barack Hussein Obama

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

          Oh, poor oil industry… are they suffering again? How sad.

          • retired.military

            Oil industry which creates thousands of jobs.  Which spends millions providing heating oil for the poor.  Which contribute millions if not billions to charities to help feed and clothe the poor.  Do you mean that oil industry?

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

            lol.. THAT oil industry is in your dreams.

            I”m talking abut the oil industry that pockets BILLIONS in profits each quarter.

            Let’s feed hungry Americans first.

          • retired.military

            Which is exaclty what the oil industry does.  A fact which you didnt dispute.

            Want to feed hungry Americans first?

            Open up oil drilling on both coasts, the gulf and in Alaska.  Price of gas would plummet I(which helps the poor).  Tens of thousands of jobs would be created.  The US economy would stabilize because we arent so dependant on foreign oil.  We would stop sending BILLIONS per day overseas to pay for oil produced in the middle east and instead those billiosn would stay in the US.   Because guess what. Those Billions are going to get spent ANYWAY. 
            Where would you like them spent?  The US or Saudi Arabia?

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

            It’s a Canadian pipeline into the U.S.

            It’s Canada’s oil not ours.

            We would stop sending BILLIONS per day overseas to pay for oil produced
            in the middle east and instead those billiosn would stay in the US.

            Not even close. Not a drop of this oil is U.S oil.

            That’s what you get when you peel back the veneer on people who want poor children to go hungry at Christmas — you uncover bullshit.

          • jim_m

            The reason we need the Canadian shale oil is because the enviro left won’t let us use the resources that are here in the US.  We have enough oil to last us hundreds of years but the left won’t allow us to access it.  Until you agree to support accessing American oil you should STFU about where we get it.

          • retired.military

            NITWIT.  If you look at what I was saying in that post I said to open up both coasts, the gulf of mexico and Alaska for drilling for oil.

            That is what you get when you peel back the veneer of cluelessness and try to rob people of money they earned.

            You also uncover a clueless twit

          • Evil Otto

            Let’s feed hungry Americans first.

            Don’t you mean “feed hungry American children first?” As long as you’re arguing in cliches, might as well use the most powerful emotional one you can. Still, don’t let me tell you how to do your job.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

            If he’s getting paid for this, his employers should demand a refund.

          • Oysteria

            I gotta tell ya, I sure was glad BP pocketed BILLIONS!  Or they would have filed bankruptcy and even though the “connected” filled their pockets with the billions paid out by BP for the oil spill, at least some of it ended up with people who deserved it.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

            (duplicate comment removed)

          • jim_m

            In 2010, together with its employees and retirees, Exxon Mobil Corporation, its divisions and affiliates, and the ExxonMobil Foundation provided $237 million in contributions worldwide

            That’s a quarter billion from just one oil company.  Once again steve you just display your ignorance for all to see.

            [edit] I’ll note that you removed your comment scoffing at the idea that oil companies give to philanthropy after I posted my response.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

            And ZIP! Down the memory hole it goes!  Never happened, Comrade – Eastasia’s always been allies with Oceania!

          • herddog505

            I work in the chemical industry (paints and coatings).  Many of our raw materials come from petrochemicals.  Certainly the fuel that runs our boiler does.  If the price of oil goes up, then the prices of our RM’s go up.  If they go up high enough, then we go out of business.

            The oil industry puts money – my wages and benefits – in my pocket, food on my table and a roof over my head.  God bless ‘em, I say.

      • jim_m

        It’s Christmas, remember?

        Unemployment barely covers the food bill for a family.  What are you going to put under the tree?  Food stamps?

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

          Food.

          For the unemployed, that’s what matters. The necessities.

          • jim_m

            And as I have said unemployment benefits do not cover them. 

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

            lol..

          • jim_m

            Typical lefty response.  Laughing at other people’s misfortune.  That pretty much proves my point that you really don’t care about the people, you just want to use them as a propaganda tool for your ideological agenda.

          • retired.military

            Stephen
            What about the unemployed who can find work but turn down jobs that they are capable of doing?

            For instance. 

            The military.

            They get paid, get free health care, learn valuable skills, get free room and board.

            Why should we support people who wont take jobs which they are well capable of doing simply because “They dont like the job”.  When I was growing up you did the work that was there. 

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

            “wont’ take jobs”?

            What jobs?

            Now we get to the nut of the matter for folks like you.

            “Those People” don’t deserve to eat.

            And their children? Who cares, at least — you don’t care.

          • retired.military

            Go down to the military recruiting station.

            They have plenty of jobs there Stephen.

            Try it and see.  Dont respond to me here.  Just go to a recruiting station and talk to them.
            If you can do it so can folks who are on unemployment.   I say that in order for you to get welfare or unemployment for more than say 4 months you need to go to a recruiting station and get a waiver stating you are unfit for military duty before you can collect another dime.

            What if everyone in the US decided “Oh I dont feel like working again. Ever.”

            Tell me Stephen. Dont they deserve to eat. How about the children.

            Who is going to do it Stephen? You.

            I have been working for a paycheck since I was 13. That is 38 years and ccounting. Can you say the same?

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            RM, I’ve asked you about this before, yet you’ve ignored this.  The military budget is very much expanded, coupled with the fact that they do not take care of the soldiers once they get out of the armed forces.

            You have not explained how military personnel are having illegal foreclosures on their homes while in other countries nor how they are coming back to a United States that is turning 3rd World with the lack of jobs.

            Why do you continue to ignore these details for an ideal of what military life really is?

          • jim_m

            That is germane to this thread how?

          • retired.military

            Jay
            See below due to space

          • retired.military

            What about my children Stephen?

            Dont they deserve to eat.  Dont they deserve an education.  Or do you think they should have to depend on the govt to take care of them as well.

        • retired.military

          Of course he is Jim.  That along with some govt cheese.

          Meanwhile you have Christian charities who spend millions to feed and cloth the poor when no strings attached (unlike the govt).  And you have the govt trying to shut down people actually feed the poor because those people arent affiliated with a govt agency.

      • retired.military

        Yes Stephen.  It is Christmas.  You must be a total idiot to point that out. 

        That is a word that the left has done its best to erase from the American Vocabulary.

        Per your leftist buddies Christmas is nothing more than another day.  WHy should it be special?

        Why arent all the millioniare lefties who are advocating more taxes for the rich actually pay more taxes voluntarily.

        • jim_m

          “Christmas” is like “children”.  It’s a word invoked by the left to shame and chastise opponents.  It isn’t something they really care about or do anything to support.  It is something to be ignored or neglected until it becomes a useful tool for propaganda and once its usefulness is over it is consigned back into the darkness to be ignored once more.

          It’s kind of like Elian Gonzalez.  A useful tool for propaganda, but once the TV cameras were turned off and the leftist media had finished with their propaganda he was consigned back to a life of poverty, to be trotted out only when the party needed a prop again in the future.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEL6MKIDWFC7LIUHOFEFTKLXQA Stephen

          “Yes Stephen.  It is Christmas.  You must be a total idiot to point that out. ”

          I stopped reading after that sentence – and you wonder why people ignore you?

          • retired.military

            Hey.  As I said Liberals are the ones who are trying to wipe the word off the map.  Not I.

            As for you ignoring me. My “feel good about my self” peg isnt moved by how people do or do not percieve or ignore me. I have better things to do with my time than try to make or even care if someone likes me.

            I dont wonder why people ignore me. I wonder how people like you can be so fucking stupid to actually believe the crap you are writing.

            The truth shall set you free.

        • Anonymous

          “Why arent all the millioniare lefties who are advocating more taxes for the rich actually pay more taxes voluntarily.”

          Because they are greedy bastards from the word go..! 

      • Evil Otto

        They’re not mutually exclusive, but American children need to eat.

        Y’know, when someone starts invoking “the children,” they have nothing left.

  • retired.military

    Jay Tea

    If you ever smack Stephen with Olaf please remove his dunce cap first.  It is so thick that it may actually put a dent in Olaf.

    The stupid is strong with this one.

    Are liberals even allowed to invoke Christmas?

  • retired.military

    Stephen’s 12 days of Christmas (hey he brought up Christmas)

    12 “republicans hate the poor”
    11 evil oil companies
    10 pity the poor starving children
    9 tax the rich
    8  straw men
    7  Look a shiny!!
    6  There are no jobs
    5  Help the poor unemployed
    4  Flat out lies
    3  worn out liberal mimes
    2  Give me your money
    and an idiot with a REELECT OBAMA  button.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

      Actually, I think you ought to swap 7 and 5.  “Look – A SHINE-EEEEE!” would do well under the ‘Five Golden Rings!” notes…

  • jim_m

    Steve,

    You seem to think that if a company posts a tax then it is somehow free money that didn’t come from anybody. That just is not so.

    When a business pays a tax that is a dollar that the business cannot pay its employee, it’s a dollar that the owner cannot receive in profit, it’s a dollar that had to be charged to the customer that they could have spent elsewhere.

    Corporate taxes ultimately come out of the pockets of employees and consumers. That includes unemployment insurance. Unemployment isn’t free, we pay for it.

    You need to develope an understanding of economics.

  • retired.military

    Jay
    I honestly didnt see your question. i shall try to answer the best I can.

    a. I have not heard of any instances where soldiers are having homes foreclosed upon illegally. I deal with soldiers on just about a daily basis and havent ever heard this when even discussing things with them. I also have several office mates who have children who are deployed and they have mentioned nothing of the like that you mention.  Does it happen?  I imagine it does but whne you are dealing with a population group that potentially covers several million (counting reserves and going over the past several years) than I imagine that things do happen.  For those there are courts to take greivances to.  If they are active duty military they can get free legal advice from JAG. 

    b. You mention the US and the lack of jobs. Again you have folks who are leaving the military voluntarily in the vast majority of cases. They for the most part are not being forced out and are looking for greener pastures.   A lot of times the pastures just look greener.  In addtiion, the military has a large very good program to help soldiers seperating and to also illustrate the vast differences between military and civilian life (ie health care and housing costs).  You still have soldiers making bad decisions the same way a lot of civilians apparantly heard the word adjustable and totally forgot its meaning. 

    c.  I dont know where you live but i live outside Ft Hood which has about 50k soldiers.   Unemployment is a problem for folks here as well as everywhere but for the most part jobs are available especially for people with military skills.  It may not be the job you want at the pay you want or the location you want but jobs are there.    I know of numerous people who have gotten out of the military and went to work for private contractors the next day. Most of them deployed and went to Afghanistan/Kuwait/Iraq.   LIke I said. The jobs are there but most people dont want to do what it takes or go where the jobs are.  That isnt the army;s fault or the govt fault.  That is the individual’s choice and individual’s decision.

    d.  I have the military to thank for a lot of things.  I know many people most of whom work with me or have worked for me in the paset who feel the same.  I learned a lot, earned a lot of skills, got to go places, see things and do things that I would have never dreamed of if I had not stayed in the miltiary or joined in the first place.

    e.  Is the military for everyone?  No.  but then neither is any job.  I have 2 sons.  One is slightly handicapped and 30 years old.  He works on post at a dining facility and recieves no assistance from the govt.  The other is 26 and works at a job making slightly above minimum wage.  Are they rich?  Nope.  Do they pay their bills and live on their own without govt assitance? Yes.  They also pay for their own health care.   Would I have liked my younger son to go into the military?  Yep.  But he said no and it is his choice. 

    f.  I know what a military life really is like.  I was in the military in the post vietnam era up until about 10 years ago.  I work with soldiers on almost a daily basis both pre and post deployment and believe me it was a lot worse then than it is now.

    g. You said that that the military doesnt take care of soldiers once they get out. Do you mean retiremeint? voluntary seperation? With medical problems?

    If the soldier voluntarily seperated why should the military take care of issues other than health issues which occured due to them serving? Does any other business do this?
    In fact the military does have some benefits which extend for a few months after seperation but not many.

    Medical benefits. that depends on the soldiers and their willingness to fight the beaurocracy. Is medical help available? yes. Is it avaialbing in podunk USA? maybe not. The VA beaurocracy like most beaurocracies is inefficient and over stressed but yet this is what Obama wants to give us on Obama care. I have Tricare and have zero problems with the care I receive. Others mileage may vary. I probably have an advantage because of where I live. I chose to retire near a major Army installation. Others choose differently. Again it is an individuals choice to make that affects outcomes.

    medical issues while serving? Well that depends on the individual. THe military medical system is fine for 99% of the issues. That 1% gets a lot of press and a lot of notice. It isnt the best but then again neitgher is the care you get from 99% of the health care plans on the open market either. I had zero issues with the medical care i received on active duty and that includes the 2 operations I had while on duty.

    Also if you are retired and have 50% disability you recieve not only VA compensation but your full military retirement check as well. For most folks that is at least an extra $800 tax free in additon to their military retirement check.

    People diagnosed with PTSD (from the ones I know ) who retire or seperate prior to retirement get award 30% va compensation (about $400-$600 or more depending on rank) per month tax free.

    I hope that answered your question Jay.;   If I dont answer a question it is because I didnt see it.  Here or in other threads. if you have more feel free to ask (in appropriate threads – or somehow get your email address to me.
    .

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

      A) Stars and Stripes for the illegal foreclosures.  From what’s been told, the major banks are sending threatening letters overseas to some people even though they’re deployed.

      B)  I disagree for a few reasons.  As Time put it, there is a widening gap between the military life and the civilian life.  The article listed explains how the American people have no idea of the sacrifices being asked of the Iraq veterans.  They also live on bases that are getting smaller and more isolated from civilian lives.  This is a considerable concern since they won’t be able to relate to nonmilitary life or to the people they may have wanted to protect.

      C)  Army Times says that the jobless rate of Vets has fallen, but there is a disparity.  Not a long article, but it explains that women make up a small sample of the article so have a higher spike in unemployment.  So 13 million Americans have to face unemployment, and only 120,000 jobs have been created.

      D)  No argument here.  I’ve been able to visit a number of countries myself, but I also note that some vets don’t have applicable skills in the outside world. You can’t load bombs in the Navy for a living outside of… The Navy for example.

      E – G) I can understand the sentiment for soldiers.  Seeing how most of the money is spent on useless toys instead of armoring up the troops, or giving them higher pay checks, I have to contend that the armed forces is not the best place to go at this current time.  I could pull up even worse examples of misallocated funds such as the Iran Drone incident, but I digress.

      • retired.military

        will respond after work tonight.

      • retired.military

        Foreclosure

        As I said above I cant speak extensively on the cases which
        the article mentions.  I do however have
        to ask a few questions.

        1.      
         Foreclosures

        a.      
         If
        married where were the spouses and what were they doing in these cases.  Especially the ones with power of atty.  If single why wasn’t an allotment filled out
        prior to deployment to ensure the bill was paid.

        b.     
        Why wasn’t the soldier checking his accounts
        when deployed.  As I stated I am sure
        that over 95% of the soldiers deployed have access to email, the internet, and
        cell phones etc while deployed.  Why were
        they not checking their accounts or trying to get issues resolved via those
        means.

        c.      
        Where was the chain of command?  Were they notified?  Why didn’t the soldier have an allotment
        (money going directly from their paycheck to pay a bill) to pay their mortgage? 

        d.     
        The soldiers get 2 weeks R&R about halfway
        through their tour.  Why didn’t they take
        care of personal business then?

        e.     
        The soldiers got a letter stating their houses
        were being foreclosed but not any letters stating they were behind in payments?

        f.       
        First and foremost if the actions taken by the
        bank were illegal than the soldier has recourses through the legal system the
        same as any other citizen. 

        g.      
        Foreclosure actions takes months if not
        longer.   Did these problems suddenly pop
        up when the soldier deployed or were they there when the soldier was at home
        station and didn’t tell anyone?

        h.     
         To my
        knowledge the longest a soldier can go TDY is 6 months.  That, to my knowledge, that isn’t long enough
        for a bank to go through foreclosure proceedings.  I am in the process of looking for a new
        house.  One house we looked at had a back
        door that needed repair. The real estate agent stated that the home had been
        broken into by a homeless person who proceeded to change the locks on the house
        to keep everyone else out.  The real
        estate company had to go through official eviction proceedings in court to
        remove the person from the premises.  In
        California it is taking years to foreclose on houses. 

        i.        
         The base
        commanders has options to deal with banks/real estate agents who are dishonest
        or do things in bad faith.  We have a
        real estate company off post here that has been placed on the  “off limits” list.  Soldiers are not allowed to rent, buy or do
        business with them in any way shape or form until this ban is lifted.   For a real estate company in this area that
        is the kiss of death for business.

        j.       
         Is this
        particular to the military?  Were other
        foreclosures rushed and or illegal dealing with civilians by the same
        bank?  If so than your implying that it
        has to do with military life having something to do with it kinda falls flat
        (other than the soldiers being deployed and it violating a specific law). 

         

         

        2.      
         Military
        vs civilian life

        The military doesn’t live in a bubble.  Their kids go to civilian schools.  A large part of the military force lives off
        post. 

        How do you get civilians to understand military life
        especially when you have a whole segment of the population who look at the
        military as nothing more than a money pit whose money should be spent on social
        programs or who should conform to civilian standards no matter what it does to
        order and discipline.  It isn’t the
        military’s fault that a gap exists.    I blame it on the American public who is more
        interested in what Kim Kardisian had for dinner or what XYZ latest diet is than
        what is happening in the world today.

         

        From your article

        “The
        military is no longer – if it ever were — a last resort for poor young
        Americans with no other options; nearly all are high-school graduates and most
        come from the working and middle classes. Yet it is self-selecting, and
        increasingly well paid. Average cash compensation per troop is $57,400, and the
        annual total personnel-related cost per troop, including health care, is more
        than twice that: $121,600, according to a recent accounting by the independent
        Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.”

        Yet to
        listen to democrats like John Kerry and Charlie Rangel only the poor who have
        no other options join the military.  Per
        democrats the military are dead end jobs which are for the lower class of
        society.   As for base closures.  The democrats want to cut the budget and the
        money has to come from somewhere.  Base
        closures cause major polticial headaches and battles.  Why do you think they went to the BRAC
        measures.  Do you want to keep the same
        number of bases for 600k trooops as for 450k troops on active duty?    If you cut infastructure than you can spend
        that money in other areas such as troop pay. 
        As for that $57k per soldier. I am sure that includes things like

        “you get
        x dollars in compensation because you don’t have to pay for medical care”

        I can
        tell you the average troop PAYCHECK isnt 57k. 
        Maybe 35k but not 57k.

        Soldiers interact with the civilian community in a lot of
        ways and through various programs.  What
        do civilians do to interact with the military?

        3.      
         Jobless
        rate for veterans  -  I see this MOSTLY as a matter of choices that
        people make.

         

        a.      
        My first thought is how many veterans
        voluntarily separated in this economy?  People
        know it is a tough time yet a large part of them separated do so willingly and
        with full knowledge of the job market. 
        As I tell my sons  with great
        freedom comes great responsibility.

        b.     
        Part of the problem which I have heard about is
        the inability of soldiers to express their skills in civilian terms.  Yet soldiers are required to go through the
        ACAP program which gives them training in how to write resumes, job hunting,
        budgeting etc.  ‘  If you have a person off the street who had a
        job and left it voluntarily what obligation is his company in to assist him
        after he leaves it?

        c.      
         Another
        item in this is planning.  Did the
        soldier go to school and advance theirself while on active duty?  You say “what about deployments” but even
        then there are plenty of education opportunities available to soldiers to get
        degrees and learn skills.   Does an
        infantryman have skills that transfer to civilian life?  Some but they may not be apparent.  Team building, leadership, initiative,
        etc.   At the same time just because you
        come in as an infantryman doesn’t mean you have to stay an infantryman.  You can get other MOSs which teach you other
        skills that translate more directly into civilian life. 

        d.     
        Where did the veteran relocate to?  Was it PODUNK IA,  pop 202. 
        And t hey want a job making 50k a year? 
        Aint gonna happen.   One of the
        things they talk about in ACAP as far as finding a job is   JOB, (what do you want to do and what are
        you capable of doing), Pay (how much do you want to make) and location (where
        do you want to work).  If you restrict
        yourself in any of those items than you restrict the pool of jobs
        available.  Google “jobs in Afghanistan”
        and I am sure that you will come up with dozens of companies offering high
        paying jobs for just about anything you can think of.  But if you remove the location from the
        equation than those jobs disappear.

         

        Tell me. What is the difference between a Navy ordance guy who spent 4
        years hanging bombs on aircraft (amongst a myriad of other duties) who did
        nothing to improve themself and got out after 4 years and a political sci major
        who spent $100k on a degree.

        a.      
         The navy
        ordance guy can probably get a 6 figure job in Afghanistan.

        b.     
        The navy ordance guy doesn’t have 100k in debt.

         

         

         

        4.      
         Your item
        D.  discussed somewhat above.   Choices people make limit their
        options.  Same as in civilian life.

        5.      
         Trillon
        dollar jet, armoring troops and toys.

         

        Military procurement is separate from monies spent on pay
        and benefits.  They call it the color of
        money.  Commanders aren’t given a pot of
        money and told “use this on what you need”. 
        They are told that there are contracts for X, Y, and Z and that is what
        the money is spent on.  You cant take
        money from one contract and spend It on another.  You have to go through the money acquisition
        phase again to get more money for a contract.   
        Example.  New construction comes
        in, in I believe 5 year budgets.  They cant
        spend new construction money on upgrading existing barracks.

         True story.  I was at Rock Island arsenal in the 90s.  We had several family quarters built in
        the  50s 
        (so 40+ years old) undergoing lead paint abatement.  Cost per wooden set of quarters was
        $40k-$50k.  I spoke to the Arsenal SGM
        and asked why they didn’t just tear down the old houses and build new ones for
        that much money and I got the lesson on the color of money.   You cant spend money allocated for lead
        paint abatement on new construction unless you want to go to jail.     Even within contracts there are colors of
        money where you cant spend acquisition money for R&D even if it is for the
        same project. 

         For some night time
        reading look up the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulation).  It is online.   You will learn more than ever wanted about
        the intricacies of how the govt spends money on contracts.   In addition, for anything over like a
        million dollars it takes (literally) an 
        act of Congress to get the money allocated.  So before you blame the military for the
        “trillion dollar jet” look to Congress who has to approve every dollar spent on
        the project and a lot of times what Congress spends money on is not what the
        military wants money spent on.   Congress
        has to bring home the bacon. 

        When the article mentions a trillion dollar jet they are
        referring to the cost of the program 
        from “cradle to grave” to include maintenance, fuel, training, repairs, future
        upgrades and disposition of aircraft after retirement.  So basically for every penny spent on the jet
        it is supposed to be initially counted for in that contract even if the jet is
        supposed to have a lifespan of 30 years which I believe the F35 does.   Of course, contracts and programs can get
        modified if they need more money down the road. 
             Also that “toy” as you refer to it is supposed
        to replace our current fighter jets which are about 30 years old.   I recently saw an article where if we don’t
        get the F35 than we would likely lose air superiority to other countries.  That is not something to be taken lightly
        when talking about casualties on the ground and the ability to do the mission.

            Also
        ref armoring the troops.  Are you aware
        that the troops were complaining about having to wear too much armor as it was
        so heavy it was impeding their ability to move. 
        The vest itself weighs over 40 pounds with the plates in it.  That doesn’t include their load bearing
        equipment ammunition, helmet, and other items. 
        Mobility is also a factor in staying alive in firefights.

        “I have to contend that the armed forces is not the best
        place to go at this current time”

        Well that is your opinion. 
        My opinion is that if you are looking for a job that provides you health
        care, food, lodging , advancement opportunities, educational opportunities, job
        skills, etc than the military is a better place than the unemployment  or welfare line.

        BTW that trillion dollar price tag is over a 50 year period not 30 like I thought. That averages out to about $20 billion a year.

        Got an email today and it had some pearls of wisdom in it.

        I4. I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like
        a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

        – Winston Churchill

        5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
        support of Paul.

        – George Bernard Shaw

        6. A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt
        he proposes to pay off with your money.

        – G. Gordon Liddy

        9. Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys
        to teenage boys.

        – P.J. O’Rourke, Civil Libertarian

        16. No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in
        session.

        – Mark Twain (1866)

        19. The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings.
        The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.

        – Winston Churchill

        . The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill
        the world with fools.

        – Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)

        24. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
        enough to take everything you have.

        – Thomas Jefferson

        1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth
        out of prosperity.

        2. What one person receives without working for…another person must work
        for without receiving.

        3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does
        not first take from somebody else.

        4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

        5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work,
        because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other
        half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is
        going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any
        nation.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

    That is germane to this thread how?

    I’m questioning RM’s constant advocacy of military service.  I’ve explained before how the troops are not necessarily taken care of while away on TDY or PCS orders.  I’ve asked before about this, and I received no reply to the questions presented.  I do have facts about this to back up my statements if asked as well as I can look in my post history for the exact comment that I posted before.  I just want to see what exactly his comment about this is.

    • retired.military

      Jay
      I answered above the best I could. 
      I cant answer to specifics exact instances without knowing the specifics of them.
      The military does have mechanisms in place to take care of most things.
      The soldiers have Family readiness plans on file with the unit which is supposed to  insure that the spouses have what is needed to include powers of atty to take care of legal matters and people they can call for assistance. In fact the power of atty is pretty much mandatory for soldiers who are deploying and are married.
      I can honestly say that I BELIEVE (IN MY OPINION) the vast majority of problems which occur fall in the category of
      a.  The spouse did not contact the unit family readiness group or the rear detachment CDR  for assistance with the issue either through ignorance (soldier did not explain what to do or how to do it) or due to embarrasment.
      b.  When soldiers deploy and or go TDY they have cell phones on them.  it isnt like it was 30 years ago when you couldnt reach out and touch someone if you really need to get them. Soldiers text in the field the same way they text at home. I would say that 95% of soldiers in Afghanistan have access to the internet, email and cell phones. Maybe not 24/7 but a good majority of the time.

      c.  A call to the red cross will get a response from the chain of command so fast it will make your head spin.  If someone needs to get ahold of a soldier for a legitimate reason believe me the red cross can do it.  Same with going to the post chaplain even if you are an atheist it doesnt matter.   True story. I was in the hospital after on of my operations.  I had been there about 3 days.  A chaplain stopped by and asked if my unit had sent anyone to see me and was I getting my mail.  I replied no.  Within 4 hours my BN CDR (a LTC), SGM, PLT SGT and several soldiers from my squad had made it to my bed, with my mail,

      d.  The army cant control issues of things like the soldier is deployed, the wife / husband leaves them, cleans out the bank account, runs up the charge cards, doesnt pay the bills etc.  

      Hope that helps.

    • Anonymous

      Military service can be good for you, or it can be bad for you.  In peacetime, socialist Uncle Sugar takes care of you, providing housing, health, commissary, educational, and recreational facilities to those who serve and their families.   Even though there is the risk of training accidents and the separation of deployments, it’s an excellent deal.

      Servicemembers earn these benefits in a period like now, when they are deployed again and again to hellholes like Iraq and Afghanistan.  Even Coasties and Navy submariners have to go.  But too often, the leadership of the country screws over broken troops and kicks them into the gutter.   An unsophisticated veteran without help will get the shaft from the VA.

      • herddog505

        First of all, pay and benefits to servicemen (housing, food, medical care) are no more “socialist” than are the benefits (stock options, company car, uniforms, housing) that many people in the business world get.  Rather, they are part of the serviceman’s compensation for his labor.

        Second, if you are claiming that the VA – government health care – will “give the shaft” to vets, then why on earth should the rest of us trust Uncle Sugar to provide or otherwise meddle in our health care?

        • Anonymous

          Living on a military base, especially one overseas, is pretty socialist.  You could call it “company town” if you wish.  Government housing, clinic, commissary, recreational center, bar, bowling alley, even a government newspaper.

          The shaft the VA gives to veterans is denying care and compensation for disabilities, the care itself is not bad once you can get it.

          • herddog505

            No, it’s not socialist; “company town” is a much more apt comparison, though GI’s tend to have a great deal of liberty insofar as they can shop and eat off post if they choose, go to the doctor off post, etc.

            I agree with you about the VA: my father-in-law is a vet and has had good care from the VA… when he finally jumped through all the right hoops.  Poor guy was in agony for months waiting for them to decide that his back was really bad, then decide that it was really-really bad, then decide that it was bad enough to have surgery, then decide that it was bad enough that his local VA hospital couldn’t handle it, then decide that it was bad enough that they needed to get a civilian surgeon to do it.

          • Anonymous

            Medical people usually want to do good.  Bureaucrats want to say no.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

            And yet you are in favor of giving over our healthcare system to 
            Bureaucrats with ‘Obamacare”?

          • retired.military

            You can live on the economy anywhere overseas that dependants are authorized (that I know of).  Also as I said you can get advocates for free to run the beaurocratic gauntlet for you.   If you have trouble with VA I would strongly suggest getting one.  As I said DAV will provide you assistance, they have been a great deal of help for me.
            People seperating from the service are also made aware of organizations like the DAV to assist them and they get preseperation physicals. A lot of people gloss over the briefings and the physical and pay for it later.

          • Anonymous

            Yeah but you even have to go to the housing office to rent off base overseas.

            You are right about the DAV and other service organizations – they do good work.

      • retired.military

        That is why you get an advocatge with organizations like DAV.

  • retired.military

    Stephen
    When you can prove to me that the govt can spend all the money I spend to them RELATIVELY WISELY then you can come back to me and we can discuss about how I can contribute more of my money for someone else to spend.

    • Anonymous

      Having spent my working career as a government auditor, I maintain that “government spending” and “wisely” are contradictory.  The nature of government prevents it from spending money wisely, with a few exceptions, of course. 

      Government is by nature political.  Thus politics always enters the spending equation sooner or later.  Nothing good for the economy can result.

      Then there is the way government hires and rewards its employees and the rules under which they operate.  No matter how bad the outcome, government employees are not penalized as long as they followed all the rules, even blindly.

      But more important that these is that government seldom spends on things that improve the Nation’s overall economic efficiency.  There are exceptions of course, but use unemployment insurance as an example.  How does paying people not to work help economic efficiency?  It actually detracts from economic efficiency.  That’s important because economic efficiency is just another name for standard of living.

      The less government spends, the better off our economy will be.

  • Evil Otto

    The Stephen drinking game:

    Every time he invokes hunger, take a drink.
    Every time he invokes “the children,” take a drink.

    If he does both at the same time, take one additional drink.

  • Evil Otto

    Stephen “hungry children” count as of 12:08 AM EST: 12.

    Got to give him credit… he has one argument, and it’s not even a good one, but he clings to it like a drowning man clings to a life preserver.

  • Anonymous

    Let’s see here.  10-20 thousand jobs, 8% reduction of buying mid east oil = billions of dollars NOT going to support terrorist groups, construction of a line which in the future can be utilized by us as a feeder line for transport of OUR OWN untapped reserves, thereby reducing even more our dependence on foreign oil = (again) less dependence on mid east oil  forcing them to drop their oil prices, more jobs for Americans, cheaper fuel prices, more jobs = better wages than unemployment = more demands for housing,food, clothing, transportation – sounds like a receipe for economic recovery to me.
    Now if you add in more conversion to natural gas and add a few refineries in the north and middle states (much needed and stops the dependence on production of the disaster prone gulf coast)  wouldn’t that be a huge step to economic security? Not to mention that you won’t find too many individuals who will complain about the medical or retirement benefits of the employers in these fields.  
    You Stephen, are one of the most incompetent, stupid fucks I have ever seen on this blog.  But Merry Christmas anyway.   

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

    Income Inequality’s a catch-phrase designed to crank up envy – nothing more.  It’s not a case of “I can’t have X because it’s not affordable” – because it is.  It’s a case of “Well, George makes X and I make Y and that’s just not fair!”  But Georges’ income doesn’t deprive you of anything, and taking it away from him won’t give you more.  

    Actually, it does.  There are a number of tax loopholes that disparage the middle class in a number of ways.  Corporate Owned Life Insurance is one, along with the number of ways that you can manipulate the system.  The lobbyist playbook exposes the problem of a nonresponsive government.  Personally, I follow copyright law and these problems show what occurs when one side has all of the money and the power to buy most of Congress.  The money buys votes much more efficiently than any economic argument.  Such is the essence of the problem with American politics.  If I may use copyright for a second, think about how SOPA/PIPA has been repulsed by everyone save the movie and music industry.  No matter how much evidence has come out stating how piracy is not a problem if you can adapt to digital technology, the fact remains that the MPAA (lead by Chris Dodd) buys Congress to pass legislation, to gain control of the internet, for their purposes.  This is the main reason that the income inequality exposes the problem that the laws passed will never be to the benefit of American society, merely to the financial benefits of those in the higher echelons of American life.

    You can get what you need, and a lot of what you want at a minimal income level – it’s a case of trying to get support for liberal politicians by cranking up the ol’ class envy truck, sounding the horn, and hoping enough idiots will hop on to make the trip worthwhile.

    And you’re no idiot.  Why do you buy into this crap, anyway?

    All evidence that I’ve seen supports the problem of income inequality.  Personally, I feel that our voting electorate causes this problem and is the root of the two party system, creating a spoiler effect, not allowing better ideas into government decisions.  I understand the frustrations of trying to convince a Senator that your voice needs to be heard.  They can send a form letter to you on an issue and that’s it.  Meanwhile, they have lobbyists that have Senators and Congresscritters on speed dial.  So how do you sit here and support either party when neither represents your interests?

    • jim_m

      You still have not demonstrated how my wealth deprives others of wealth.

      You can claim that income inequality is not fair, but in reality it is that inequality which incentivises people to achieve.  If we eliminate all income inequality then there is no incentive to achieve.  We end up with universal mediocrity.

      What has made America great is equality of opportunity.  While we have not always been perfect at providing this we have always been better than anywhere else.

      What the left wants is to dismantle that equality of opportunity in favor of a politicized system that will bestow rewards based on political affiliation and racial identity.

      No thanks for my part.

      • retired.military

         Jim

        I agree.

        I dont feel income inequality is the problem but income envy is.

        I dont look at a billionaire and think that I should have what he has. I look at them and think, what do I need to accomplish to get what he has and do  I want it bad enough to do what it takes to get it.  You have folks like the OWS crowd who look at what the average hard working citizen has and says what can I do to take that from them so I can have it and the dems say I will take it from them and give it to you if you vote for me.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

        You can claim that income inequality is not fair, but in reality it is that inequality which incentivises people to achieve.  If we eliminate all income inequality then there is no incentive to achieve.  We end up with universal mediocrity.

        The problem is where that income inequality leads.  The money is invested in politicians to pass favorable laws to a corporation or business, doing more to destroy economic mobility in the US.  I doubt that anyone wants to stop all economic inequality.  But what most people can agree on is limiting money in politics in regards to corporations giving unlimited donations or legally bribing someone for a vote.

        Understand, this is not advocating that we erase economic mobility on the parts of individuals.   Let’s look again at the Bush Tax Cuts as mentioned earlier.

        The Tax cuts for the 1% – $66, 384
        Average income of 99% – $58,604

        Inflated Adjusted Income of the 99% from 1979 – 2005 –> 21% increase for the middle income workers while the .1% have an increase of 400% over the same time span.  The question is, who derives that .1%?

        That would be CEO Executives (43%), the Financial aka Wall Street guys (18%), and Lawyers (12%).  Are they really making that much gross income from crazy laws?  Ask the 20 guys on this list  And the .1% have an annual salary of ~ $2 million a year.  This is a combined annual income of about a trillion dollars.  Could we tax a little more than 28% on capital gains taxes to assist in some of the deficit, at least for the time being?  Can we also impose a fairer system that would scale a lot better than the current marginal tax rate system that is all too confusing?  I believe the answers point to yes on both questions.

        What I lay out in my argument is that the ones that make the money also make the rules favorable to a select few.  I believe the old saying is pretty apt:

        “Remember the Golden Rule.  He with the gold makes the rules.”

        • retired.military

          lets look at other %s Jay

          Top 1% pay 40% of taxes.
          Bottom 47% pay 0% in taxes.

          And since you are in wits of wisdom I quote from above.

          . A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. — Thomas Jefferson

          You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity. 

          . What one person receives without working for…another person must work for without receiving. 

          The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. 

            You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. 

          When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work,because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of anynation.

          Oh and you brought up lawyers. By all means kil them first. Remember the tobacco settlement suits that was “For the children’ well the lawyers got their 1/3 of it. That works out to hundreds of millions for the lawyers. The dems never seem to mention that though. Could it be because the ABA is firmly in their hip pockets.

        • jim_m

          But what most people can agree on is limiting money in politics in
          regards to corporations giving unlimited donations or legally bribing
          someone for a vote.

          No we can’t agree on that.  Because you on the left insist that your union pals should be able to have unlimited ability to spend money on your candidates.  That’s what every so-called campaign finance reform has done. and that’s why they get struck down as unconstitutional.

          This has only ever been a bullshit, hypocritical facade for the left to try to snuff out the free speech rights of everyone else while preserving their own.  If you don’t like the constitution then go live somewhere else.

        • jim_m

          Hey Jay,

          How come you list off CEO’s, Wall St guys and lawyers, but you leave off all your lefty friends in Hollywood and in professional athletics?  Why don’t you go examine how the left in Hollywood cooks their books so they don’t pay any taxes? Why don’t you go examine how Michael Moore advocates how everyone should have to support the unions but refuses to hire any union workers himself?

          I suppose you like your cozy hypocrisy too much.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Chris Dodd is not on my friends list.  But if you look at the stats, that’s 73% of the people in the .1% who make over the requirements.  I’ve already criticized Chris Dodd for his stances with Countrywide, the MPAA bribery and overall his hypocrisy on supporting whatever the money allows.

            For some reason you believe I’m a dedicated Democrat who is incapable of criticizing people on both sides.

            I’m equal opportunity.  I criticize both parties just as much.  Barney Frank is still an asshole to me, Nancy Pelosi is still an overblown windbag, and Newt is still a hypocrite.

            Further, if you really want to get me started on how Hollywood Accounting, RIAA Accounting, and all of the music deals that occur that favor a select few in the industry, I could be here all day talking about the ineptitude of Doug Morrison, Mitch Bainwol, Mitch Glazier, and Dodd.

            Oh and Moore is entertaining but I don’t take him all that seriously.  He sensationalizes his media too much for my taste.  His entire process is to get people to focus on a problem.  He can never figure out a good answer.  That’s just my take.

            Oh, and the states subsidize Hollywood massively.  That would be an interesting article if someone actually wanted to write it up with the research.

        • herddog505

          You are leaping to a false conclusion:

          “Some people get a bigger tax return than other people”

          becomes

          “Rich people engage in political corruption.”

          The one does not follow from the other.  Or are you suggesting that rich people simply endorse their refund checks (if any) over to their member of Congress as a matter of course?

          “Thank you, oh THANK YOU for reducing my marginal rate!  Now, my wife and I will only have to pay $250k on our $1 million income instead of $300k!  To show our gratitude, here’s a check for $50k.  You… you’ve earned it.”*

          Oh, and since we’re in the business of whining that rich people had their taxes lowered by more than “the 99%” makes in income, the rich also PAY far, far more than the 99% make in income:**

          Taxes paid by 1% – $254,167
          Average income of 99% – $58,604

          And, finally, what the hell is fair about the 1% paying roughly 25% of their income in taxes, while the 99% pay about… hell, they GET A REFUND.

          Married couple, one earner, two children w. $50k income pay (-$112)
          Married couple, two earners, no children w. $1M income pay $254,000

          This is FAIR????

          —-

          (*) Data taken from the WSJ, reproduced here:

          http://www.examiner.com/political-spin-in-national/the-bush-tax-cuts-explained

          (**) Tax burden assuming married couple filing jointly with an income of $1 million.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

          So why should people who pay a massively larger share of taxes NOT get a larger cut in taxes?  Should tax cuts be going to people who don’t pay taxes, or pay only minimal taxes?  How does that make sense?

    • herddog505

      I must in all seriousness congratulate you: you’re the first person I’ve come across who could explain why “income inequality” is bad other than by throwing a tantrum about how it’s just not FAIR or spinning sob stories about how children are starving because… um… somebody else has all the money.

      However, I think it worth noting that you really do seem to be a tiny minority: the morons at OWS can’t seem to put together an argument more sophisticated than “it ain’t FAIR!”

      Further, I suggest that you need to shift your sights.  You point out that riches can allow people to buy political influence, which in turn helps them accumulate more riches as well as step on people who impede or otherwise displease them (I would be the last to dispute this).  But the problem isn’t riches: it’s a corrupt and overly powerful political system.  Instead of OWS, it should be ODC.  Instead of “greedy bankers”, it should be “corrupt politicians”.

      To the extent that the OWS crowd has an agenda beyond “gimme-gimme-gimme!” and avoiding soap, they are actually calling for the government to have MORE power and BROADER authority.

      Seriously: WTF?

      It’s akin to shop owners, faced with a gang that has paid off the local cop to look the other way while they run a protection racket, demanding that the cop be given a bigger gun.

      And something else to keep in mind: not all “rich” people (and the left has such a hard time defining who is and isn’t rich) buy influence.  Why should all the “rich” people who simply go to work (or their own businesses), pay their taxes, and otherwise play by the rules suffer because a relative handful engage in what amounts to bribery?

      Incidentally, what do you make of unions and their practice of buying politicians?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

        However, I think it worth noting that you really do seem to be a tiny minority: the morons at OWS can’t seem to put together an argument more sophisticated than “it ain’t FAIR!”

        It’s a hard thing to say that they don’t have a good message.  It seems to be coalescing into two major themes: “Money out of politics” and “limit police powers”.

        Of course, the latter is just exposing the problem of a police force that has militarized for the past 30 years.  The former?  Just the fact that Congress hasn’t listened.  Most people know they’re on the take.  Hell, 8% of the people support Congress.  More people supported the Revolution than support Congress right now.

        But the problem isn’t riches: it’s a corrupt and overly powerful political system.

        Exactly.  That’s what I’m against.  When you find that the majority of lobbyists have made the rules they enforce or continue to utilize the revolving door of politics, it undermines politics in general.  It doesn’t matter if your ideology is different.  What matters is that you spend enough money to win your legislation.  If I start showing exactly how, you would see the problems of drug law and police unions, pharmaceutical law and patents, or music and copyrights.  The underlying problem remains the same.  The lobbying is used to corrupt the federal government.

        To the extent that the OWS crowd has an agenda beyond “gimme-gimme-gimme!” and avoiding soap, they are actually calling for the government to have MORE power and BROADER authority

        I don’t think that’s the case.  They’ve just shut down the west coast harbors over the past week.  They are transfering to occupying homes for the downtrodden.  There’s a number of ways to “expand the Occupy brand”.  And to top that off, they are going directly for Congress.  It seems they are trying to limit the government and make it more responsive to them than to the money they receive.

        And something else to keep in mind: not all “rich” people (and the left has such a hard time defining who is and isn’t rich) buy influence.  Why should all the “rich” people who simply go to work (or their own businesses), pay their taxes, and otherwise play by the rules suffer because a relative handful engage in what amounts to bribery?

        It should be noted that there are a number of distinctions that can be made among the rich.  The ones that make millions actually support legislation to tax them 1% or 2% more.  Some billionaires do the same.  However, at the higher echelons, these are the people that use their business connections for stock options that exceed millions of dollars.  Honestly, it’s hard to look at Philippe Dauman and say he deserves all of that money based on Spongebob being successful.  Honestly, how can you justify $84.9 million in compensation when Viacom is “decimated by piracy?”  These are the justifications for businesses trying to control their respective markets, and using politicians to ensure regulatory capture.  That’s the main problem here despite ideology.

        Incidentally, what do you make of unions and their practice of buying politicians?

        Business PACs do the same thing, but I believe if you change the system, unions will have less support in the coming years.  Honestly, they can’t survive in their current forms.  They’re mainly a relic of the 20th century.  Now I don’t think you can take away collective bargaining, just that the labor struggles of the 21st century will be very different from what we understand now.

        All in all, I still don’t support unions buying politicians, I would support any statesman that actually looked to change that system and made it more competitive for all by limiting donations to $100.  Otherwise, unions won’t have a leg to stand on as people continue to leave most known unions that don’t support their interests.

        • herddog505

          JayThe lobbying is used to corrupt the federal government.

          Then why is the left’s focus on punishing “the rich” by raising their taxes?  Why is it OWS and not “Occupy K Street”?  Yes, yes, I know: some of the OWS buffoons managed to wander their pot-addled way there.  But they are a splinter, a handful, a fringe.  The REAL complaints are and have been against “fat cats”.

          Jay[OWS] just shut down the west coast harbors over the past week.  They are transfering to occupying homes for the downtrodden.  There’s a number of ways to “expand the Occupy brand”.  And to top that off, they are going directly for Congress.  It seems they are trying to limit the government and make it more responsive to them than to the money they receive.

          At risk of engaging in hyperbole, they’re efforts to make government “more responsive” are conceptually the same as the tactics used by terrorists, i.e. harm or threaten to harm otherwise innocent people to FORCE the government to do their bidding.  Whether its longshoremen who lose pay because they can’t work, shops and businesses around the country who can’t operate normally because shipments are delayed, local businesses that go bankrupt due to the vandalism and other antics of the OWS morons, or cash-strapped cities who have to divert police resources away from fighting crime to riding herd over a pack of sometimes-violent yobs, NORMAL PEOPLE suffer from the OWS’s antics.

          But I shouldn’t complain too much.  As a partisan, I’m very happy to see the OWS squatting in public streets, harassing schoolchildren, sh*tting on police cars, doing drugs, organizing flash mobs in stores, vandalizing property, rioting, and otherwise acting like hoodlums: this will not work to the dems’ advantage next November.

          On the other hand, it’s not good for the country when people get the idea that this sort of behavior is acceptable.  Rule by mob is NEVER a good thing.

          JayHonestly, it’s hard to look at Philippe Dauman and say he deserves all of that money based on Spongebob being successful.  Honestly, how can you justify $84.9 million in compensation when Viacom is “decimated by piracy?”  These are the justifications for businesses trying to control their respective markets, and using politicians to ensure regulatory capture.  That’s the main problem here despite ideology.

          So, which is it?  Are you pissed because somebody makes a lot of money that you don’t think he deserves, or that businesses corruptly influence Congress and regulators?

          If the former, then I say that I don’t have to justify somebody else’s salary because it’s none of my business, just as it’s nobody’s business but mine and my bosses’ what salary I make.  If the board of directors of a company, the owner of a sports team, a movie producer, etc. believes that an employee is worth $100 million / year, that’s their business, not mine.

          Now, if your beef is corruption, I’m right there with you, but I don’t see how whipping up class envy by whining about how much this CEO or that president of the board makes does a single thing to solve the problem.

          By the way: the market, which lefties profess to abhore because it’s sooooo unfair, has a pretty good way of dealing with overpaid employees: those companies go out of business.  Problem solved.

          Jay[T]hey can’t survive in their current forms.  They’re mainly a relic of the 20th century.

          Agreed.  O’ course, those same unions are using corruption to try to keep themselves in business: card check, the NLRB’s meddling in Boeing, etc.  Little Dick Trumpka and the rest of the union goons have soft jobs, and they’ll do whatever they can to keep them.  If that means paying off a member of Congress or two, or putting their boys “in the streets” along with the OWS bozos, fine with them.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Then why is the left’s focus on punishing “the rich” by raising their taxes?  Why is it OWS and not “Occupy K Street”?  Yes, yes, I know: some of the OWS buffoons managed to wander their pot-addled way there.  But they are a splinter, a handful, a fringe.  The REAL complaints are and have been against “fat cats”.

            As I’ve been reading the stories, it’s a number of things. First, most millionaires support a tax because it will not change their spending.  The have a website.  But even now, the Democrats are dropping that even though it has high support.  To me, it reads that most Dems have abandoned their base.  Why stop legislation that has massive support from those it affects?  

            I have to contest that they are a fringe though.  They continue to keep coordinated and have grown from 100s to thousands.  Most of the media won’t cover them in a hope to make them go away.  Yet, now we’re going on a third month and they continue to fight.  And I would suggest looking at the Vanguard report on the 99%.  Seeing that documentary, it gives a new found respect for what some people go through.  Some of the military vets don’t have a job to come home to in a small place. They have high debts that have ballooned from 2001.  The problems of the last 30 years are coming out in the movement, which is why so many support the movement more than they support Congress.

            At risk of engaging in hyperbole, they’re efforts to make government “more responsive” are conceptually the same as the tactics used by terrorists, i.e. harm or threaten to harm otherwise innocent people to FORCE the government to do their bidding.

            And I’ll contest that.  They are exposing the problems, true.  But similar to the Arab Springs movement, the point is to show the problems of the government’s inattentiveness.  If the movement did engage in violence, it never would have gotten as large as it did.  Every last person that picked up a gun would have been considered a terrorist.  And seeing as how our police are very militarized, they don’t know how to respond to massive protests.  The war they fight is ever increasing enforcement.  The war that OWS fights seems to be more or less nonviolent protest.

            Whether its longshoremen who lose pay because they can’t work, shops and businesses around the country who can’t operate normally because shipments are delayed, local businesses that go bankrupt due to the vandalism and other antics of the OWS morons, or cash-strapped cities who have to divert police resources away from fighting crime to riding herd over a pack of sometimes-violent yobs, NORMAL PEOPLE suffer from the OWS’s antics.

            I’m aware that there are mixed reactions to the Occupy movement.  But consider how nothing else has worked for the past 30 years.  I use 30 years, though the problem has gone on much longer.  Environmental issues go in one ear of the government and out the other.  Political issues go to the ones with the most money regardless of support.  I would venture this is the only way for some groups to actually be heard.  It’s the same concept that formed the Tea Party, hence the similarities.  But I believe we should explain some of the situations that have occurred:

            longshoremen
            Mainly support the Occupy movement, but can’t strike since the union leaders work with Goldman Sachs

            local businesses that go bankrupt due to the vandalism
            It should also be noted that some of the Occupy came from the areas of that protest and helped to rebuild their area.  Also, some of the more militant Occupiers are self professed anarchists and possible agent provocateurs.  Anarchists, believe that property damage is a form of non violence which is stupid.  It hurts the movement.  But most of the ones that believe in anarchism still disagree on such things.  Agent provocateurs, have been confirmed to be undercover police.  Maybe not all are undercover police, but take it with a grain of salt that all in the movement want to destroy as much property as possible.

             cash-strapped cities who have to divert police resources away from fighting crime to riding herd over a pack of sometimes-violent yobs

            Just something to consider, why does Florida need a tank for protests?  Why have the police begun to use drones in the US?  Further, why are the police using more military weaponry for peaceful protests?  It’s quite hard to say it’s a “cash strapped” city when the city is funded by private interests.  These are the problems that the Occupy movement are considering unfair.  The police should consider serving all equally, not who fills their pockets.

            this will not work to the dems’ advantage next November

            There IS no advantage.  No one can support Obama.  With Obama signing the NDAA, he’s abandoned his base.  Period.

             Are you pissed because somebody makes a lot of money that you don’t think he deserves, or that businesses corruptly influence Congress and regulators?

            The latter is the problem.  But Philippe seems to believe that passing a bill like the “Stop Online Piracy Act” is a good thing even though it infringes on the 1st and 4th Amendment in a major way.  So what Philippe does is buy Lamar Smith or Amy Klobuchar to buy legislation that favors supporting his company.  That’s the most ridiculous part about these lobbyist playbooks.  Everyone knows they’re bought, but they pass these bad laws for their own job outside of screwing over the American public.

            By the way: the market, which lefties profess to abhore because it’s sooooo unfair, has a pretty good way of dealing with overpaid employees: those companies go out of business.  Problem solved. 

            And I agree with that.  The problem is, those companies can go to the government with corporate welfare and sustain themselves on tax savings and favorable tax laws to support them.

          • retired.military

            Jay
            ” First, most millionaires support a tax because it will not change their spending’

            I am really disappointed.

            Anyone who wants to can write a check to the treasury.  Are you seriously saying that if they want to pay more but only if they have to but if they dont have to they will continue to pay high priced accountants money to find loopholes to pay as little as possible?

            Think about that logic Jay and tell me where that statement doesnt cover what you are telling us.

            Also please explain how you can make the statement MOST millionaires which imply more than 50% when there are a few million of them in the US. Did someone ask all of them “Do you want to pay more taxes?”

            Also clarify what you mean by millionaire. Is it a person who netted more than a million dollars last year after taxes or is it a person who has a million dollars in assets after liabilities. I consider it the 2nd. The 2nd group could conceiveably only make 50k a year and save it up for 20-30-40 years to finally have assets of over a million dollars (50k a year – living expenses ). Are you suggesting that they want higher taxes?

          • herddog505

            Did anybody ask Jean-Francois Kerry?  I seem to recall that he moored his yacht in another state to AVOID paying taxes.  He’s a millionaire, right?

            Or Kathleen Sibelius.  Or Tim Geithner.  Charlie Rangle.  If I recall correctly, Warren Buffet is fighting the IRS with might and main over his taxes.

            I guess these people aren’t patriots.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            The Warren Buffet rule has support from those surveyed, so I’m going based on those numbers.  That’s where the 68% number comes from.  When asked, these millionaires said that they wouldn’t cut their spending with the money, but they utilize the loopholes that are currently in the law.  The Patriotic Millionaires website has a lot of support.  They are paying their taxes but it’s not proportionate as Buffet said a few months ago.  Capital gains taxes are 15% for investments.  Income taxes are 25%.  His secretary is paying more in taxes than he is.

            Anyone who wants to can write a check to the treasury.

            Yes, and write this off as a donation, getting it back on their tax return.

            Are you seriously saying that if they want to pay more but only if they have to but if they dont have to they will continue to pay high priced accountants money to find loopholes to pay as little as possible?

            I believe this is a miscommunication of what I am saying.  What the millionaires are supporting is assisting the government by taxing their capital gains more than income so that it helps out the economy.  This does not assist in stopping government spending, but it shows that there is support for more taxation on the part of millionairs.  Even then, the GOP, when challenged, could not find anyone that didn’t support more taxation for this purpose.  So until the GOP can find small businesses that don’t support this challenge, I have to think they are blowing smoke on this specific issue for the wrong reasons.

          • herddog505

            The GOP can’t find anybody who doesn’t want higher taxes???

            Hell, they should have asked me.

            JayYes, and write [donation] off as a donation, getting it back on their tax return.

            Now, why would a patriotic millionaire write off a donation to the government that he’s soooooo eager to help?  Indeed, why would he write off ANYTHING?

            Frankly, the bit about patriotic millionaires BEGGING for higher taxes sounds like utter bullsh*t.  They could pay more at any time, but don’t.  Indeed, judging by their behavior (hiring tax attorneys and accountants, disputing tax bills with the IRS, filing under corporate rules instead of personal, outright cheating, etc.) they have no more desire to pay more taxes than anybody else has.

            Again: when I see people like Buffet and the rest of these “patriotic millionaires” fire their tax attorneys and start writing large, regular checks to Uncle Sugar, I’ll think that they’re being honest.  Until then, I say that they are (frankly) a pack of damned liars.

            Here’s video of a reporter from The Daily Caller asking these yahoos if they’ll contribute to the Treasury.  Incredibly, they all REFUSE to do it.

            Apparently, they are SOOO patriotic, and giving more money to Uncle Sugar is SUCH a great idea that… they have to have a law to make them do it.

            Somehow, I’ve got a hunch that after they publicly ask the Congress to raise taxes on “the rich”, they quietly “suggest” that the law be written in such a way that it doesn’t apply to them.

          • herddog505

            The GOP can’t find anybody who doesn’t want higher taxes???

            Hell, they should have asked me.

            JayYes, and write [donation] off as a donation, getting it back on their tax return.

            Now, why would a patriotic millionaire write off a donation to the government that he’s soooooo eager to help?  Indeed, why would he write off ANYTHING?

            Frankly, the bit about patriotic millionaires BEGGING for higher taxes sounds like utter bullsh*t.  They could pay more at any time, but don’t.  Indeed, judging by their behavior (hiring tax attorneys and accountants, disputing tax bills with the IRS, filing under corporate rules instead of personal, outright cheating, etc.) they have no more desire to pay more taxes than anybody else has.

            Again: when I see people like Buffet and the rest of these “patriotic millionaires” fire their tax attorneys and start writing large, regular checks to Uncle Sugar, I’ll think that they’re being honest.  Until then, I say that they are (frankly) a pack of damned liars.

            Here’s video of a reporter from The Daily Caller asking these yahoos if they’ll contribute to the Treasury.  Incredibly, they all REFUSE to do it.

            Apparently, they are SOOO patriotic, and giving more money to Uncle Sugar is SUCH a great idea that… they have to have a law to make them do it.

            Somehow, I’ve got a hunch that after they publicly ask the Congress to raise taxes on “the rich”, they quietly “suggest” that the law be written in such a way that it doesn’t apply to them.

          • retired.military

            see below

          • retired.military

            see below

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            The Warren Buffet rule has support from those surveyed, so I’m going based on those numbers.  That’s where the 68% number comes from.  When asked, these millionaires said that they wouldn’t cut their spending with the money, but they utilize the loopholes that are currently in the law.  The Patriotic Millionaires website has a lot of support.  They are paying their taxes but it’s not proportionate as Buffet said a few months ago.  Capital gains taxes are 15% for investments.  Income taxes are 25%.  His secretary is paying more in taxes than he is.

            Anyone who wants to can write a check to the treasury.

            Yes, and write this off as a donation, getting it back on their tax return.

            Are you seriously saying that if they want to pay more but only if they have to but if they dont have to they will continue to pay high priced accountants money to find loopholes to pay as little as possible?

            I believe this is a miscommunication of what I am saying.  What the millionaires are supporting is assisting the government by taxing their capital gains more than income so that it helps out the economy.  This does not assist in stopping government spending, but it shows that there is support for more taxation on the part of millionairs.  Even then, the GOP, when challenged, could not find anyone that didn’t support more taxation for this purpose.  So until the GOP can find small businesses that don’t support this challenge, I have to think they are blowing smoke on this specific issue for the wrong reasons.

          • herddog505

            You’ll forgive me if I’m skeptical of the “patriot millionaires”.  For one thing, I sincerely doubt that a huge fraction of rich Americans are just champing at the bit to pay more taxes.  More importantly, these yahoos can pay more at any time they choose: they don’t need a change to the tax code to send in a check.  Uncle Sugar will be GLAD to cash it.

            At any rate, the proposed tax increases will hit people who make far less than $1M; it will hit reasonably successful small business people.  Even Trashcan Chuckie Schumer is bright enough to see this as he realizes that $250k (which seems to be the common definition of “rich”) ain’t exactly Scrooge McDuck territory for people who live in and around NYC where the cost of living is very, very high.

            Jay Most of the media won’t cover [OWS] in a hope to make them go away.  Yet, now we’re going on a third month and they continue to fight.

            Are you serious?  MiniTru is REFUSING to cover OWS???  Time just named “the protester” as their “Man of the Year” for pity’s sake.

            But maybe you’ve got a point.  MiniTru has been very quiet about certain aspects of OWS: why, one hardly reads or sees much of anything outside the rightwing blogosphere about the rapes, the riots, the arson, the drug use.  Lots of deafening silence there.

            With regard to corporate welfare, much has been made about how the Tea Party and those filthy yobs at OWS have sooooo much in common.  I (among many others) dispute this.  Yes, both parties ALLEGEDLY don’t like “corporate welfare”, but only one side is demanding that the goverment have less power to distribute this sort of largesse.  Hint: it ain’t OWS.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

            Do you support removing the anti – trust exemptions from Unions?  If not, why not?

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

          The easy solution:  Remove the power of government and shrink it to the size that it has nothing to sell, rather than trying to remove corruption from the government by making it more powerful.

  • retired.military

    Jay

    Ref writing it off on their taxes.

    The purpose is to voluntarily pay higher taxes. 

    Your statement still doesnt pass the common sense test.  You have people saying “I volunteer to pay higher taxes only if the govt changes the law to make me do it:” yet these same people still pay high priced accountants to legally get every deduction they can.

    They dont have to write the stuff off on their taxes.  Simply do a plain 1040 form and dont take any deductions. Your tax bill will be higher and those pepole who want to pay can pay without dragging in others who dont want to.

    Again.  What are you counting as millionairs?  People cleraing a million a year or people with assets of a million or more.

    And a poll conducted by a biased website means nothing.

    That is like MSNBC asking its viewers – “Do you think Fox is biased and we are even handed in reporting the news:”

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

      The tax is a 0.5% tax after a million is earned.  I believe the ones counted are those that clear $1M a year.Here’s a video and their argument.

      The Patriotic Millionaires is 200 strong who are fighting against the Bush tax cuts as venture capitalist Garrett Gruener displays to PBS.  Part of his argument makes sense:


      GARRETT GRUENER: …And in this country, we have gotten to real extremes of wealth being controlled by the upper 1 percent. We’re now an outlier internationally. And it got so bad that in — or so good, depending on how you want to think about this — that, in 2007, the upper 1 percent was capturing 23.5 percent of all of the income.
      The last time that had happened was 1928. And I believe that the — what happened next, the Great Depression in 1929 and the great recession of 2008, was a direct result of that bias in the distribution of income.


      Now let me stress, I have no envy to someone that makes money through hard work or making a successful business.  I don’t think there is a wealth envy.  What these people are trying to say is that they want a system doesn’t have an inherent bias to those that are in the top 1%, stifling economic growth and taking away innovation.  My personal advocacy is to change to a fair tax system.  It’s a lot simpler and a lot cleaner than the marginal tax rate where you have a government micromanaging how much money you make per year.  All of the changes are done for political gain.  In the end, when smoke clears, the ones that benefit are the lawyers and politicians.  Lawyers benefit because they’re the ones that find the loopholes for clients, charging more for their services.  Politicians profit because of the campaign donations that pour in.  That would be the fundamental change that I believe would truly benefit the nation over individual prosperity of those in politics.

      • herddog505

        1.  According to Wiki, there were an estimated 16.6 MILLION millionaires in the United States in 2007.  This group of only 200 doesn’t even qualify as a fringe.  Why do they get so much press?  Could it be that they are agreeable judas goats pushing the liberal / democrat line that the key to our prosperity is to tax the sh*t out of people who have money so that DC can continue to spend like drunken sailors?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millionaire#United_States

        2.  Jebus… The Great Depression and the Great Recession were caused by “income inequality”?  Is this guy serious?

        3.  This guy is pulling stuff out of his a**: the United States is NOT an “outlier” nation in terms of income inequality.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

        I should add that income inequality is, IMO, a rather misleading number.  If I make $50k / year but live within my means, am I really worse off than somebody else who makes $500k / year who doesn’t?

        Further, in a developed economy, high income inequality does not equate to high poverty.  The poor in America have luxury items like cars, cel phones, TV’s, etc.

        Further, income inequality has no bearing on income MOBILITY.  Poor people in third world sh*tholes where there is high inequality typically stay poor NOT because of inequality per se, but because of a lack of the rule of law, education, and other features of our society that we take for granted.

        4.  What a lot of libs fail to grasp (or admit) is that really bad economic downturns (Great Depression, Great Recession) are INTERNATIONAL.  How does income inequality in the US result in a collapse in housing prices in Britain?

        5.  If F*cko the Clown feels so badly about having so much more money than everybody else, then there’s quite a lot he can do to change that situation without urging Uncle Sugar to screw the hell out of everybody else.  Quite aside from cutting a check to the US Treasury, there are many excellent charities that can put his money to good use.  O’ course, HELPING the flock isn’t what judas goats do, is it?

        6.  I agree with a new tax system.  In my view, it should be a flat tax: everybody (including corporations) pays a fixed fraction of his income.  No loopholes, no brackets, no deductions.  Talk about robbing Congress of one way that they corrupt our economy and the rule of law!

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

          1)  They are a small group with a lot of money.  Of course they are going to get noticed.

          2)  It was caused by banks speculating with money that wasn’t theirs.  The Fed was implicit in both problems. Still, the economic disparity of Carnegie, Rockefeller, and other stock market fat cats showed there were signs of problems between haves and have nots (namely the farmers or the drifters)

          3)  You are correct that income inequality has no bearing on mobility.  I thought I was stressing this point.  What I am stressing in regards to the inequality point is that it shows there are problems in law.  When the lawyers and politicians are making more money than the people they are supposed to represent, there’s a problem.  Hence, these graphs.  In short, the problem is when the rich get richer using the law making process for regulatory capture.  When you have the CEO bonus pay going up 350X in the last 30 years, where will that money go?  Why has the average wage not gone up?  Currently, it’s being spent frivolously or through corporations for favorable laws for the business.  Monsanto, the RIAA, the MPAA, oil subsidiaries, and military…  These all benefit from the bad laws and favorable tax code to let them do what they do.  Such is the problem of politics.

          4) Not sure about the UK housing problem.  But I did look into the mortgage crisis and how it affected every country like Greece pretty hard.  In short, the fake demand of the US government can have devastating effects in a lot of other countries as their money dries up.  And yet the fact that the CEOs made millions while their banks and companies were bailed out shows the hypocrisy of any leader position on this issue.  I recall a Chase banker mention how he made 7x the commission on securitized loans over regular loans.  The CEOs didn’t care because they knew they got bailed out.  Now how does that make the US prosper in any way, shape or form?

          5)  Not sure about this one.  I’m using them for example purposes as there are a lot of Americans as well as millionaires in two different surveys that supported a millionaires tax.  Still doesn’t fix the spending problem, which has been proven that some of the money for the military can be used for education for better benefit.  Also, government spending at this point is just beyond dumb.  Congress just needs to elect a few engineers, make them sit in a room with economists, get the politics out of the room, and listen to guys that crunch numbers without a philosophical bias.

          Won’t ever happen or we would have done #6 years ago…

  • retired.military

    Jay

    Ref writing it off on their taxes.

    The purpose is to voluntarily pay higher taxes. 

    Your statement still doesnt pass the common sense test.  You have people saying “I volunteer to pay higher taxes only if the govt changes the law to make me do it:” yet these same people still pay high priced accountants to legally get every deduction they can.

    They dont have to write the stuff off on their taxes.  Simply do a plain 1040 form and dont take any deductions. Your tax bill will be higher and those pepole who want to pay can pay without dragging in others who dont want to.

    Again.  What are you counting as millionairs?  People cleraing a million a year or people with assets of a million or more.

    And a poll conducted by a biased website means nothing.

    That is like MSNBC asking its viewers – “Do you think Fox is biased and we are even handed in reporting the news:”

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

    And in the latest news, the Democrats have caved on the 3.25% Millionaire surtax.  Link

    What I could do is look up the campaign donations of the Democrats who have been paid to lose.  I could even look at the Republicans and their contributions.  But the point remains.  Our Congress is paid for so that the best arguments do not win.  Instead, the money talks to both parties that will never represent the American people.  *sigh*

    • herddog505

      Well, if it makes you feel any better, the GOP often caves on raising taxes, cutting defense spending, and increasing spending on federal giveaway programs.

      None of them are worth a damn.